Talk:Richard Ofshe

message: Some info about Mr. Ofshe's work as expert witness in the 1980's would be a good addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the additions. Note that he worked closely on many cases with Singer. Adding some of these would be great. Do you know if he also co-witness with Singer in the Fishman case? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert witness

message: We need secondary sources for these. Some of these honors do not state who is the organization/institution that awarded these honors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: One citation per honor. MAke it easier on the readers to verify the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please leave in these citations.  They are useful for the reader, and they will be used later on to add additional material to the article.  Thank you.  Smeelgova 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We could certainly use better sources than that, yes.  But in the meantime, these sources are find.  They were entered in official record in the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, so they are officially recognized credentials and honors.  Will remove tag.  Smeelgova 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honors section 

message: Ofshe has done a lot of work about the reliability of confessions. Email me directly about articles (tilman at snafu dot de). Another thing is that his entire document collection on Synanon was destroyed in one of these regular California fires . I don't really have much time to edit, but I put this article on my watch list. --Tilman 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the little research I have done, I can see that there is quite a bit of controversy around his expert testimony. I have added some material to cover some of the cases in which his testimony was rejected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confessions 

message: This is the disputed material. If editors can find secondary sources for them, great. Otherwise, these need to go back until such time in which secondary sources may be found:
* In the case of People v. Ladell Deangelo Brown, the Court of Appeal, Third District, California affirmed the conviction of the defendant and rejected Ofshe's opinion. [http://www.reid.com/pdfs/20060823-2.pdf Court of Appeal, Third District, Case
No. C050121. (Super.Ct.No. 02F03173). June 23, 2006 
* In the case of Staye v. Angel Torres, July 2006, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, rejected Torres' claim "that the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of interrogation expert, Dr. Richard Ofshe." Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, Case No. 86530, July 20, 2006
* In the case of Harold Wayne Nichols v. Ricky Bell, Warden, the United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee rejected the Bell's claim that "trial counsel failed to properly debrief him to find evidence of coercion," and that "the coercive nature of the interrogation process was demonstrated through the testimony Dr. Richard Ofshe." 
Harold Wayne Nichols, v. Ricky Bell,  Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, No. 1:02 CV 330, July 25, 2006 
* In the case The People v. Amy Marie Garvin, the defense offered expert testimony from Dr. Richard Ofshe who testified that "...Poorly trained interrogators use false "evidence ploys" in conjunction with inappropriate psychological "motivators" to coerce false confessions without knowing that the confessions are false. These interrogators focus only on producing a confession without thinking about the guilt or innocence of the person interrogated." The jury rejected this testimony and found the defendant guilty.Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California. Case No. H026723 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. FF301260). Feb, 10, 2005.
* In the case of State of Florida vs Nathan Brinkley,the Judge denied the defendant's motion to suppress his confession based on Ofshe' expert witness testimony. In his decision the judge found that Ofshe's testimony lacked credibility. After reading the transcript of Ofshe's interview of the defendant, the court found that "Dr. Ofshe did, in fact, ask the defendant numerous leading questions, and that he did indeed suggest to the defendant that he was bated, coerced and improperly motivated during the interview." Case NO.: CRC99-18956CFANO, Division: M, Nathan Brinkle, Defendant. Order denying defendant;s motion to suppress, 2002, APRIL 18,2002, AND MAY 10, 2002
* In the case of The People of the State of California vs. Amy Marie Garvin, Ofshe's testimony was rejected by the jury. Case No. FF301260 Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Octiver 6, 2003
 
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to go over these cases, if you can provide more hyperlinks for the other cases as well.  But it is clear from a quick perusal of the above text that you have selectively picked certain types of leading quotes... Smeelgova 17:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am already looking over this last case you have provided, where you claim that Ofshe's testimony was "rejected by the jury." - I am not seeing this.  In fact, it looks like extra questions were asked of the jury, and most of the opposing counsel's objections were all overruled!  Clearly there is dangerously high potential for POV pushing with these sources.  Smeelgova 17:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: These summaries are not mine. These are compiled from the John E. Reid & Associated institute website. So, maybe these are no primary sources after all... The link is in the EL section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly if the summaries are from a reputable secondary source then that would probably be okay.  But do you mean this link John E. Reid & Associates ??  I could not find the text of the "summaries" you have cited above, just links to actual primary sources testimony.  Smeelgova 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hrm, I think you must mean this Summary of Testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe, but oddly enough, the text is all weird and there are random characters all over the place.  Does not seem like a reputable secondary source at all - just some independent company's proprietary stuff.  I will attempt to make heads or tails of this.  Smeelgova 17:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, these are not necessarily the best reliable sources, and primary sources leave open the angle of POV pushing/interpretation at the least.  On the other hand, it is clear that Ofshe's testimony is not always accepted, and does not always have wonderful outcomes.  On the other hand, it is evident that he has testified to some success in many, many other cases.  On the other hand, we should probably include more of these cases - especially the very high-level press notable ones.  On the other hand, I also propose to make some sort of summary mention that Ofshe's testimony is not always accepted, and in X number of cases, was either rejected or had resultant negative outcomes - and then simply cite these cases briefly.  "On the other hand - there is no other hand!" (quoting a funny play)  That is my proposal.  Smeelgova 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent. A significant viewpoint, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI, I found some other reputable secondary sources, but I do not want to pay for them online, and it would take time to find other methods of getting copies.  But suffice it to say there is plenty of secondary sourced info on this interrogation debate, that we do not need to bring primary sources into this - especially after that lengthy new section I have added.  I will provide you with some of the citations you might find interesting below.  This shows that we can use secondary sources instead.  Smeelgova 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Reid's comments and references are secondary sources, Smeelogva. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but not reliable or reputable ones.  They are clearly biased and those Web pages were clearly created only to attack Ofshe's reputation.  WP:BLP.  The cites of the cases can stay, but I am extremely uncomfortable with leaving in the POV biased characterizations about those cases by Reid.  Smeelgova 20:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On which basis are you saying that these are nor reputable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying they are not reputable as to the actual existence and facts of those cases. But not as to their personal POV biased characterization about the cases.  Smeelgova 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. That is what we do in Wikipedia articles, describe any significant POVs, and attribute them to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is what I did above in the entire new section.  I thought that you would be happy that I was writing for the enemy.  Let's leave it the way it is, let the reader read the cases, and draw their own conclusions.  I already wrote that the outcomes were not favorable.  We do not need to draw in Reid's biased inferences.  Smeelgova 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: *I found a reputable secondary source for this, The San-Diego Tribune.  I have added information to a new section, and incorporated the Reid site's rebuttal and criticism of the Ofshe/Leo methodology into this section.  Smeelgova 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I found some other reputable secondary sources, but I do not want to pay for them online, and it would take time to find other methods of getting copies.  But suffice it to say there is plenty of secondary sourced info on this interrogation debate, that we do not need to bring primary sources into this - especially after that lengthy new section I have added.  I will provide you with some of the citations you might find interesting below.  This shows that we can use secondary sources instead.  Smeelgova 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Reid's comments and references are secondary sources, Smeelogva. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but not reliable or reputable ones.  They are clearly biased and those Web pages were clearly created only to attack Ofshe's reputation.  WP:BLP.  The cites of the cases can stay, but I am extremely uncomfortable with leaving in the POV biased characterizations about those cases by Reid.  Smeelgova 20:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On which basis are you saying that these are nor reputable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying they are not reputable as to the actual existence and facts of those cases. But not as to their personal POV biased characterization about the cases.  Smeelgova 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. That is what we do in Wikipedia articles, describe any significant POVs, and attribute them to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is what I did above in the entire new section.  I thought that you would be happy that I was writing for the enemy.  Let's leave it the way it is, let the reader read the cases, and draw their own conclusions.  I already wrote that the outcomes were not favorable.  We do not need to draw in Reid's biased inferences.  Smeelgova 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John E. Reid and Associates

message: The article intro needs to summarize the article as per WP:LEAD. As it stands now, it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point.  However, I am sure that we can find much more sources to expand the rest of the article first.  Then, there will be lots more to summarize.  Smeelgova 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article intro

message: # Can primary sources such as court records and affidavits of an expert witness testimony, be used as sources for an article about a person who one of his areas of notability is being an expert witness? 
#If plenty of secondary sources can be found, should editors strive to use them instead, and not risk inferring personal POV judgements from primary sourced material?
#If secondary sources exist (which it is not certain at this point), should the material based on court records and affidavits be deleted from the article while editors are attempting to find these secondary sources?
;Comments by involved editors
* Smeelgova keeps deleting properly sourced material relevant to this person notability, based upon a mistaken premise of primary sources not being good sources in this case. This is the diff. It includes six cases, meticulously sourced and cited, in which Dr. Ofshe's testimony was rejected by the courts.  If secondary sources can be found for these rejected testimonies, great. But in this case, lack of secondary sources does not warrant the deletion of the lawsuits, affidavits and judges decisions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to the point below, I have already found instances where Ofshe's testimony did not have favorable outcomes, in reliable Secondary Sources.  I am putting these into the article myself, as a show of good faith.  Indeed, as we can definitely find the negative POV information that Jossi is looking for in Secondary Sources - there should be no real conflict here.  Smeelgova 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: NOTE: to other people coming to this page from RFC...  User:Jossi and myself have removed this article page from our watchlists.  We seem to have come to a consensus on this issue.  This is the consensus (I think), or at least the last kind of stability:
**I have will not contest the addition and inclusion of the six cases discussed above, now located in the subsection "John E. Reid and Associates' critique".
**Jossi will allow the information as stated about those cases to remain the way it is at the moment of this edit.  To clarify, at first, Jossi had copied the text summarizing these cases directly from the "John E. Reid and Associates" Web site.  I think it is undisputed that at the very least Reid and Ofshe/Leo have academic/professional conflict with each other.  Therefore, it is alright to allow information about the strict existence of these cases and unfavorable outcomes, but as they stand now, I removed some of what I believe to be the POV language about the cases, which was inferred by Reid.  (I had mistakenly and I apologize believed that this inference had come from Jossi).  At any rate, we both won't have this page on our watchlist, so other editors can see these comments and hopefully infer what they will.  I truly am glad that (I hope) we have come to some sort of compromise/consensus.  Actually, not just on this contentious issue from earlier, but also on the summary in the section "DIMPAC task force", which (at the moment) I think is fine.  Smeelgova 05:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: The article mentions synanon in connection with an award, but doesn't mention synanon elsewhere. So what was it about? A false confession about synanon? Or research of Synanon as a cult? --Tilman 07:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synanon 

message: A number of edits were recently done from IP address 68.127.184.215, apparently signed by Richard Ofshe, that should be reviewed. AndroidCat (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left notes on the IPs' talk pages about editing from an IP address, citing proper sources, and pages to read about WP:COI/WP:SELFPUB. Until/unless the IPs become more active/involved in the article, not sure what else there is to do here, though at some point if that becomes the case, could be something that WP:COIN could deal with.  Cirt (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem edits by 68.127.184.215

message: I have removed the entire Reid section of this article - the sources consisted entirely of self-published material and primary sources, which are unacceptable for a criticism section of a BLP. If somebody wishes to create an actually neutral overview of this supposed controversy that depends on secondary sources that actually establish its importance, I encourage them to do so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reid section removed

message: I have removed a clear cut case of original research (specifically WP:Original synthesis) here ). The claim need to be sourced to a reliably secondary source which says there's no evidence, not the transcript of the confession Nil Einne (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear cut original research removed 

message: His article mentions his convincted was overturned but doesn't mention why or whether Ofshe's had any role. It's likely of relevance here whatever the case Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marty Tankleff 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Richard Ofshe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150215091752/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/index_1.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/memphis/index_1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 04:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment