![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
(Moving along since everyone is on vacation.) Given Dr. Welner's high media profile since the Virginia Tech shooting, The Sandy Hook shooting has reminded me that it appears that this section is greatly in need of updating.:--Jcally66 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It's difficult to find a high profile crime in the past decade that Dr. Welner has NOT been repeatedly interviewed for on television.
Looking briefly just on mass shootings there's:
We should include another paragraph pointing out that Dr. Welner describes the same hypothesis to explain all mass shooting events.--Jcally66 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I will take a look at this, but lets deal with the cases first. Lawblogger18 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe the Selected Case on Free still needs to be rewritten as it is misleading in its current version. In the current edit, the section implies that all of Dr. Saul Kassin's conclusions on false confessions were found to be "unscientific" based on Dr. Welner's testimony when in fact the ruling was much narrower than that. The bulk of Dr. Kassin's pioneering work on the phenomena of false confession is still accepted and has been independently confirmed by many of the researchers. Dr. Kassin testimony on the frequency of false confessions and the many factors that lead to false confession are all now accepted by the wider scientific community and this work continues to be supported over time. The decision in the Free case only referred to the narrow topic of whether a specific confession could be identified as false based on its particular circumstances and execution. Dr. Welner's later comments in prominent interviews espousing the rarity of false confession should also be mentioned, since his assertions have been solidly refuted since that time.--Jcally66 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The reference to Richardson was still inaccurate/misleading for the reasons I have indicated in the past, and I have revised. Lawblogger18 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've hand enough of Welner and his employees and flack weasels who insist on rewriting this article as a hagiography.
I've taken a meat-axe to the self-published and self-serving piles of BS, and cut this down to what a normal Wikipedia article on a self-promoting hired gun witness would look like. Frankly, it could be cut down even further. Efforts to restore this crap will be met with strong, and well-sourced material on the extraordinary level of controversy attended to Welner. Fladrif (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
On what basis were the cases selected? I think we'd usually want a sourced stat3ement that his involvement was of major significance to the outcome. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I added a few well referenced cases, and reverted to streamlined descriptions. Lawblogger18 (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
((cite web))
: |author=
has numeric name (help)
((cite web))
: |author=
has numeric name (help)
((cite web))
: |author=
has numeric name (help)
((cite web))
: |author=
has numeric name (help)
((cite web))
: |author=
has numeric name (help)