Talk:Murder of Megan Kanka

message: I think 'it' is refering to Megan and of which I think is quite rude. Did she suddenly become not human, lose the right to still be called, 'her' or 'she' after her death!!?
:Fixed it (it's not just rude, it's disrespectful!). Janet13 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It! 

message: Except that in this case, unlike the Holocaust and Hitler, here Timmendequas is the "alleged killer."
You forgot the word "alleged." 65.28.9.8 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been convicted hasn't he? What's alleged about that? 195.157.218.43 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He argues that he was wrongfully convicted; if he admitted to the allegations, they wouldn't be alleged, but he hasn't, so therefore they're "alleged," and he's the "alleged killer."  Since we have a presumption of innocence, that's how this terminology works. People are convicted wrongfully all the time. Conviction doesn't make the allegations actually true. Thus, the word "alleged" is neutral, per WP:NPOV. 65.28.9.8 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no longer any presumption of innocence once someone is convicted; resolving that presumption one way or the other is the whole point of rounding up a jury and having a trial.  I found this article while looking for something else and was amazed to see all the "allegedly"s sprinkled about.  I have removed them and made a few other changes and wikification improvements.  --CliffC 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. People are convicted wrongfully all the time, sometimes for many, many years (see miscarriage of justice for a list of only a few). Just because someone was convicted of a crime does not mean that the allegations against them are not just that - allegations. Timmendequas clearly has been protesting his innocence all the time, and continues with post-conviction remedy attempts. If those attempts are successful, his conviction would be overturned. Accordingly, because he has not stated the allegations are true, they remain allegations - neither true nor untrue. To call them anything less or more in this article is not a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). Even should this discussion section should be called "Use of 'allegedly' after alleged perpetrator has been convicted." 65.28.9.8 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy corrections can be made to make the article more WP:NPOV without sticking in a bunch of "allegedly's".  See: examples here.  This is an encyclopedia for God's sake — not the proper place to vindicate convicted criminals or to right the wrongs of the American justice system. Also, the possibility that he maintains his innocence is much more of an allegation than the fact that he was convicted for the crime in question, as you have failed to provide any references. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The defense team admits he killed the victim, they claim he was wrongly convicted because of mitigating factors. He also confessed, which supports some of the mitigating factors that his lawyers argued in court. He used affirmative defenses, which have the premise that he did kill her and he did sexually assault her, but he is not criminally liable for these actions. See the reference with the name "nytimes", the article from 1997-05-31, which came after the initial verdicts, before sentencing or appeal. It would be silly to write "alleged killer", because his confession and his legal defense admit he is the killer. Conceivably one could write "alleged murder", because maybe the defense is arguing that it should be manslaughter. Because he was convicted and his appeals failed, I think "allegedly" can be left out entirely - which is the approach used by the New York Times just after the verdict, they state it as fact. 209.6.225.254 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "allegedly" after perpetrator has been convicted

message: I have reorganized this page to get the discussions of separate subjects into separate sections. --CliffC 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page reorganized

message: *Against. While this article could use more information, it is certainly notable enough to remain on its own.
*AGAINST I agreed with that
*against No one would ever suggest merging an article about Jewish Holocaust victims with one about Adolf Hitler.  Same principle.  The killer and the victim are not one in the same and shouldn't be viewed that way.  Tfaeriewings 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with Jesse Timmendequas

message: Usually I tend to steer away from hot issues like pedophilia, sexuality, religion, etc... But from a completely objective point of view, it seems odd that Megan Kanka doesn't have her own article (her name redirects to Megan's Law for now). There are however separate pages for Megan's Law, the Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation and Jesse Timmendequas, none of which discuss Megan, but do every other aspect of the issue.
I suggest a short article explaining the story around Megan, with "See also" links to the three above articles. I hope you'll agree. --92.104.4.11 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Separate article for Megan Kanka

message: There is no point in having an article as pathetically small as this one is now.  It's not even a stub.  This needs to either revert back to the way it was in 2007, or be merged with something else. -Etoile (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, definitely. --S-man (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should not survive