Talk:Kevin Strickland

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that prosecutors who worked to convict Kevin Strickland in 1979 now say they believe him to be innocent? (Source: Associated Press)
  • ALT1:... that two confessed murderers and the only eyewitness said Kevin Strickland, given a life sentence in 1979, is not guilty? (Source: Associated Press)
  • ALT2:... that Kevin Strickland said if he is released from prison, he wants to go to the beach for the first time? (Source: ABC)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Qingzhen Zhinan

Created by AllegedlyHuman (talk). Self-nominated at 07:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC).

• Hook is concise and engaging--I think that the original is the best. It is also clearly supported by reliable sources. Notability is solid with national-level coverage. Length and date are appropriate. No copyvio violation on Earwig. Appropriately QPQ'd. Teemu08 (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P7

Wrongfully convicted?

There have been edit summaries about whether to say in the introduction "convicted without sufficient evidence" or "wrongfully convicted". I've modified the section on exoneration to include the judge's words, which in my view clearly support wrongful conviction: "Under these unique circumstances, the Court's confidence in Strickland's conviction is so undermined that it cannot stand, and the judgment of conviction must be set aside. The State of Missouri shall immediately discharge Kevin Bernard Strickland from its custody." Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm not sure they should be seen as alternatives anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, clearly "convicted without sufficient evidence" is "wrongfully convicted" (though "wrongfully convicted" isn't necessarily "convicted without sufficient evidence"). Pol098 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's obviously a wrongful conviction; according to the ruling, there appears to be literally ZERO evidence because the eyewitness's retraction was legitimate (she didn't retract earlier because she was afraid of perjury charges) and it implies that it was more likely than not that Strickland was uninvolved because two people who pleaded guilty to the murders said that Strickland wasn't there (despite naming other living friends/associates of theirs who WERE involved). But our opinions are irrelevant. NPOV says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". No one has supplied any RS that say that he was not "wrongfully convicted" except the Missouri AG, who obviously has a conflict of interest: the judge's ruling explicitly says that the State (and specifically the AG) has a compelling interest in defending criminal convictions. The current way that we are handling it (calling it a wrongful conviction as per the overwhelming majority of reliable sources while noting the AG's objection) is the correct, neutral way. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)