Talk:Murder of Scott Amedure

message: Click here for opinions: --Frankoooo 20:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court of Appeals opinions: 

message: I made this article more appropriate for an encyclopedia entry...Mike 06:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned it up... 

message: Article fails to mention his conviction and sentence. Is he currently in prison? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Schmitz

message: Hello.
This may sound bad, but I had to remove one of the categories: :Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes
There's nothing in the article's text that indicates that it was prosecuted as a 'hate crime'. If it was, then that fact should be documented before re-adding it. If it wasn't, then it seems like original research to add that characterization.
Though it was certainly a murder, and even related to Amedure's being homosexual, the killing itself wasn't for being gay, but rather because of public humiliation and unwanted advances. That certainly doesn't condone the murder in any way, nor does it even begin to imply that he was 'asking for it' or anything like that, but it still doesn't qualify as a 'hate crime' (unless, of course, it was prosecuted as such).
(btw, sorry if I sound a little overly or preemptively defensive, but I sometimes get a bit nervous about the reaction to certain types of edits) 209.90.133.69 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate category 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Murder of Scott Amedure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224222943/http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/jennyjones/050799_verdict_ctv.html to http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/jennyjones/050799_verdict_ctv.html
*Added  tag to http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20021022_C226645_64_233O.226645.OPN.COA.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725145817/http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20021022_c226645_65_233d.226645d.opn.coa.pdf to http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20021022_c226645_65_233d.226645d.opn.coa.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418204806/http://theoaklandpress.com/shared-content/search/index.php?search=go&o=0&l=20&s=recent&r=&d1=12-1-2000&d2=today&q=scott+amedure to http://theoaklandpress.com/shared-content/search/index.php?search=go&o=0&l=20&s=recent&r=&d1=12-1-2000&d2=today&q=scott+amedure
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I was just wondering if there is any chance that the additions made to the article and referenced to the Jenny Jones Trial YouTube video (listed as 4) could be verified elsewhere or deleted completely or written into an appropriate section not intermingled with provable facts. My reasons for asking this is that the video itself isn't actually verified as being authentic and even if it had been, the description on the video states that this testimony is from April 1999 (which would agree with some of the other references for the article), however that means that the testimony contained within is actually from the civil lawsuit and not the criminal trial as has been suggested in the misleading additions to the article which use this source as a reference.
I'm not entirely sure if the same standards of evidence are used in civil proceedings in the USA or indeed anywhere. For example can hearsay be used as evidence in a civil case and if so, does hearsay have any place passing as fact in this encyclopedia especially when the other written references from noteworthy publications seem to provide a contradictory analysis? 
Also I think that since the video is clearly an infringement of copyright, being a videotaped recording of a television screen, that is has no place on wikipedia at all. Iynx (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I was wondering what this note actually said to make it "suggestive", so I tried searching. This article  claims:
: On March 9, 1995, Johnathan went home and saw a construction light sitting by his door with a note attached to it from Scott saying “You have the right tools to turn this on” implying a sexual connotation.
Equinox ◑ 17:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: what the heck is a construction light?  2601:19C:527F:A680:5D2E:AF20:C961:590C (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a portable light fitting used to provide illumination for construction workers. You know, so you can dig holes in the dark. Equinox ◑ 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "suggestive" note left by Amedure for Schmitz