Talk:Coretta Scott King v. Loyd Jowers

A comment by a DA who was "not involved in the case" is hardly relevant or trustworthy and should not be part of this entry. The additional information I included is from the most well-investigated sources and highly reliable.Riversong (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to disagree, but the sources you have added give undo weight to fringe theories. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At most, you could include the defense attorney's claim that the trial implicated others. However, the district attorney's statement must remain as a counter point. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What Zfish is doing is giving all the weight to a DA who actively opposed re-opening the criminal case of James Earl Ray in spite of mountains of new evidence. A legal determination, such as occurred in the civil trial, based on the overwhelming majority of evidence, is hardly a "fringe theory" except to those who profit from burying the truth. Wikipedia should not be in the business of defending indefensible "official" propaganda on such historically important events. I have re-edited, including both sides of the controversy, and the current version should be allowed to stand. Riversong (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide evidence of the "mountains of proof" --Zfish118 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)