Talk:Geza de Kaplany

Problems
There are some slight problems I wasn't able to solve.

1. Some sources suggest that he added the "de" to his name when he came to the United States, to appear aristocratic.
 * It should be OK to mention this as an "According to some sources" and cite to the source, if it is a reliable source. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

2. The details of his wife's injuries are inconsistent and vary from source to source.
 * The official record, which would be the Ninth Circuit opinion as being the highest court to consider the case (which incorporates the district court's finding of fact) just says she died from having nitric acid poured over her body. If you have a reliable source such as the Anspacher book (which is contemporaneous and, as I recall, decently written with its major focus on the trial, though I can't find my own copy right now) then the best thing to do would be to quote the text and cite to the source if you need more details. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

3. One source says he lost an eye, due to a beating by his father. Photos show him having two intact eyes. No mention of a glass eye.
 * I believe Anspacher, quoting the court record, says he lost the sight in one eye; you can lose the sight in one eye without losing the entire eye so he may well have had his physical eye present but just been legally blind in it. It's possible later sources abbreviated this as "he lost an eye" since people sometimes say that when they actually mean "lost the sight of an eye". Where in doubt I would follow the source saying "lost the sight of an eye" since that is a correct statement in either case. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

4. Some sources say that his book "Doctor in Revolt" was fraudulent. I could not determine the truth of this.
 * Determining the truth of it would be "original research" and thus forbidden. If a reliable source says the book is fraudulent you can quote that, e.g. "Reliable Source contends that his book is fraudulent". TheBlinkster (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

5. I was unable to locate the German womens magazine that exposed him in Germany.
 * This might be in the California parole board public records, but unfortunately those aren't available online and I doubt they are available in a legal database either due to privacy concerns.TheBlinkster (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

6. Nor did I discover what he taught at Yale.
 * Judge Hufstedtler's dissent in the Ninth Circuit opinion says he taught anesthesiology at Yale. The Ninth Circuit is a reliable source. I will add it in. TheBlinkster (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully more research will clear up these inconsistencies.-- Auric    talk  13:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Restrictions on granting of parole in light of de Kaplany case
The article currently states that after the chair of the state Parole Board pretty much smuggled this guy out of the country, "As a result, the ability to be paroled while under the sentence of life imprisonment was removed." I do not doubt that maybe some restriction on granting of parole was made as a result of the public outcry over this, but I kind of doubt that the ability for any California lifer to be paroled was "removed" (i.e. entirely removed). If indeed it was "removed" it likely would have been put back shortly thereafter, as "life" sentences often have the possibility of parole and in order to have that removed the person usually has to specifically be sentenced to "life without parole". However, I am not a lawyer in California so I do not know specifically how it worked there, especially back in 1975, as the law of sentencing and parole evolves a lot over time. Is there a source specifically supporting the above statement? It may be that someone reworded it and it lost something in translation... If no source, this will require looking up some more sources to see what reforms (if any) were made to the laws of parole as a result of de Kaplany's case. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)