Talk:Kevin Coe

message: It's nice that somebody thought to create this article. And the citation of the Kevin Coe portal page at the local newspaper was a boon. But the article as I found it today was irresponsible. You can't say somebody did this and did that about things they haven't even been indicted for, let alone convicted. And it seemed that the authors had Coe confused with another criminal, because they said he molested a child while living in Las Vegas with his second wife when in fact Coe married his second wife while he was in prison -- in Washington State! The article also just wasn't very informative, even though there's been enough details of the case available on the Web. 
Suggestions for further improvement. I would like to know what impact the two trips to the state Supreme Court had on criminal law in that state: police tactics, prosecutor tactics; particularly, it would seem those two Supreme Court rulings would have killed off the use of hypnosis in criminal investigations in that state. That would be important to have in this article. Another possible gap in the article is long term effects on residents of Spokane, if there were any. 
I think the article is good enough to remove it from the Stub class. This topic merits only a short article. I wonder what the class parameter should be instead, now that it's not Stub. Hurmata (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The May 2008 rewrite

message: On 2 June, 71.223.103.92 revised the word "novel" to "book". I consider this misinformation, even though a novel is a book and Olsen did write a book about Kevin Coe. The reason it's misinformation is that twofold: (1) 'book' is less informative than 'novel' because it's more generic; (2) since Jack Olsen was somebody who wrote almost exclusively nonfiction, and since he's one of America's most famous "true crime" writers, one would assume that one of his "books" would be nonfiction. Indeed, that's probably just what happened with 71.223.103.92. The fact that Olsen's book about Coe is a novel is reported at Olsen's own Web site (as is the fact that the book won a fiction award). Hurmata (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The kind of book that Jack Olsen wrote about Kevin Coe

message: Here's the quote: "This is one of the most remarkable true crime books you will ever read." Emphasis mine. This is from the jacket copy, available at: http://www.jackolsen.com/son.htm
I also own a personal copy of this book - the spine contains the notation "NF" - nonfiction.  The fact that this book's entry in the OCLC WorldCat catalogue (I'm a librarian, and have access) contains a Dewey number means it is not considered fiction, as fiction does not receive a classification in the system.  The contention that the book has won an Edgar award and is therefore a novel is a canard; Edgar awards are also given to nonfiction.  See the Edgar award entry here in Wikipedia, and see also the categorization of the book on the author's page here as well - it's under nonfiction.  
To make the information consistent, I am changing the word "novel" to "book."  Fraoch Dubh (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author Olsen's own site calls the book "Son" "true crime" 

message: I was wondering if the article should really be titled Kevin Coe or The south hill rapist. Kevin Coe is only notable for his role as the South Hill Rapist. As Wikipedia's notability criteria for Criminal Acts states, articles about a person notable for only one criminal event should be focused on the event and not the criminal. I want this article to do such, and I believe that changing the title to The South Hill Rapist would help quite a bit. However, I don't want to be too bold and go through with such an action without finding out whether others agree with this action. So, I was hoping to get the opinion of others, as well as their rationale, if possible. Thank you. Greengreengreenred (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about the title of this article 

message: A lot of websites differ on this. Some say he was about to be released but, before that could happen they charged him with another rape and some say that he did go free on bail but that he remained in custody until his next trial in 1985 and some just say that in 1984 due to court missteps he was freed on bail for a year before his next trial. Which was it? Was Mr. Coe actually free and clear and walking around in the community for a year between 1984-1985, was he free but essentially in custody, (which would be weird because they all say that he was freed on bail or bond except the ones that say he was about to be able to walk free but things changed, because when a person's freed on bail they get to go home normally, right?), or was he about to be released that year but wasn't and the new trial was actually sooner than the following year? Sorry if this is confusing. I guess a simple way to put would be: Was Kevin Coe actually free and at home, (Spokane or Seattle or wherever), for that one year between 1984-1985 when his convictions were overturned? 
Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.238.30 (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question regarding the year he was released due to the hypnotized witnesses