Talk:Perfect crime

message: Do not add JonBenet and rappers to this list, they do not meet the criteria, those are simply unsolved crimes. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  perfect crime versus unsolved crime 

message: Please, Stevertigo, we already have discussed this. I am sure that the religious point of view has nothing to do with an article like this, even less so in the terms you put it (who is "God"? the Christian one? the Jewish one? the Islamic one? any of those of a polytheistic or pantheistic view of the world? what does "commonly conceived" mean?). If you do not agree, let us bring this where a third opinion or a mediation can be given us. (And please, do not mark this kind of edits as "minor" ones.) Goochelaar (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Goochelaar, I understand that "discussion" involves actual discussion. I left the comment above for you. It deals with several points. You did not respond to any of them. Therefore I say you have not fulfilled an accurate definition of "we have [..] discussed this," nor does your usage of "already," to give an inaccurate impression that our discussion was closed, impress me. Please respond to the points above, and I will deal with them in substance. Thanks. -Stevertigo 20:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I have restored my text dealing with the religious point of view. It has been a full day since the above exchange and yet you still have not responded to either that or to the text above. Please do engage me in discussion, before imposing your views upon the article. Thanks for your cooperation, -Stevertigo 05:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: (Other opinions) That is fine, and please do solicit some. It would of course lend support to your argument if you could deal with each and all (or even any) of the points I made in the section above. It also would help if you retitled this thread from something other than "again [with] the religious remarks," as you will agree that we have not really completed our discussion yet, for the simple reason that you have neither 1) responded to the several points above, or 2) conceded. Of course, getting extra eyes is fine, but you will still have to deal with the points above. Thanks, -Stevertigo 19:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again on the religious remarks 

message: Why is there an example placed in the second lead paragraph? No example needs to be given there. The recent jewel thief bit should be introduced in the main article text. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved that bit down to "Real life examples". Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "For example" in the lede 

message: The David Swaim scuba-diving case referenced at length in the Real life examples section was overturned on appeal last fall. [1] Not sure what the best way would be go go about revising the article from where it stands now. --75.162.19.10 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swaim Case 

message: My understanding has always been that a perfect crime is one where the perpetrator has managed to evade detection through a combination of intelligence (ability to anticipate the thought processes of the investigators), thoroughness (elimination of all relevant evidence) and sheer luck. Locked-room mysteries provide typical examples of particularly-hard-to-solve cases that come close to perfection, at least. "Mr. Monk and the Astronaut" may be a good example: although there is a suspect, his alibi appears bafflingly airtight. Am I mistaken? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another attempt at a definition 

message: The article currently seems contradictory in two (possibly related) ways:
# The introduction says "A perfect crime should be distinguished from one that has merely not been solved yet or where everyday chance or procedural matters frustrate a conviction", but the section about the zone of death in Yellowstone National Park says it "may permit the commission of the 'perfect crime' on the technical grounds that a jury trial could not be carried out". That sounds like a "procedural matter" to me.
# The introduction focuses to a crime being "(un)solved", but the problem with the "perfect crime" in the zone of death is that it can't be prosecuted, not that it can't be "solved" (whatever that means – presumably figuring out who committed it).
In resolving these contradictions, it should be taken into account that the original essay on the zone of death is titled The Perfect Crime and that the articles on Bullfrog County, Nevada, Zone of Death (Yellowstone) and Vicinage_Clause all use the term with reference to that phenomenon. This suggests that the definition of "perfect crime" should include that case, and if a definition that doesn't is adopted, those articles would need to be adapted.
Joriki (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions