Talk:Marcia Clark

Comments
JustinM 13:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC) JustinM

Is this part correct?

"Her only other notable case the prosecution of one Michael Harmon, arrested for an incident in which he was convicted of having murdered another hockey player on the ice."

I think it was a fictious case used for competitions between law schools. Some joker probably added it.

"Her only other notable case the prosecution of one Michael Harmon, arrested for an incident in which he was convicted of having murdered another hockey player on the ice."

Okay I removed the above -- it is a fake case. It was added by a joker. Check this out from the Columbi, Missouri COLUMBIAN (newspaper) written by By C.J. CAMPEAU and dated March 11, 2004:

It was not Professor Plum in the billiard room with the candlestick this time, but rather Michael Harmon in the ice arena with a hockey stick. Harmon, a pro hockey player, was angry in the days leading up to playoff game in which he would face rival player and rising star Tony Sturmanis, the same man he had learned was having an affair with his wife. Tension during the game was so thick one could cut it with an ice skate blade. Sturmanis scored, and Harmon checked him into the glass. When Sturmanis came after him, Harmon could control his rage no longer. In an explosion of fury, he swung his stick at Sturmanis’ head. The young star collapsed, and his head smashed into the ice. He was later pronounced dead. Harmon was indicted on suspicion of homicide, setting the stage for “State of Midlands v. Michael W. Harmon,” one of the most dramatic court cases since the O.J. Simpson trial. The case, however, is entirely fictional, created by the American Mock Trial Association for college mock-trial teams across the country. An MU team of six students has earned the right to try the case in the National Intercollegiate Mock Trial Tournament this weekend at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond.

--JustinM 13:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC) JustinM

Removing McMartin Reference
I had never heard of Marcia Clark's involvment in the McMartin Pre-School Sexual Abuse case. However, I decided to Google it to see if I was wrong. However, when googling it, all references go back to Wikipedia, even some independent sites that give credit to pulling this info from Wikipedia. Unless someone can independently verify that, I think it should stay removed, which is what I did. Seems like an "urban legend" that's getting a bit too big.

However, what is NOT an Urban Legend is that she was the prosecutor of the guy who murdered actress Rebecca Schaefer, who starred in "My Sister Sam." Asc85 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This entry is pretty short.
It has less information about Marcia Clark than the O.J. trial entry. I have too much POV to do it, but I would like to mention she decided to argue with the Judge, and often, leading to evidence dismissal. Important evidence wasn't even introduced. Prosecutors arguing with judges is like drunk drivers arguing with the cop pulling them over.

She whiffed a fat pitch with her prickly attitude and made millions off it because millions of white Americans viewed her incompetence as a 'black jury' thing.

At least mention Bugliosi's Outrage.

Or at least mention that she changed her hairstyle during the trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.21.50 (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gender Neutrality.
She is not a former prosecutrix. She is a former prosecutor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.156.164 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

no mention of scientology?
her book 'without a doubt' leaves no doubt about it. also some more references to her ex-husband horowitz and to her second husband.

http://www.bkgm.com/articles/MarciaClark/HorowitzAndRoman.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.122.94 (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So when was the Simpson trial?
Lots of inconsequential dates listed--Clarks marriages, etc.--but one that's missing is when the O. J. Simpson trial took place. 1952? 1992?  2002?  I have no idea, though I lived through it. To me, it was...well, awhile ago.173.62.11.254 (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the underwear anecdote really so important?
I am removing it, as it seems exploitative and unverifiable. It may be that it has some merit -- but there MUST be more relevant and verifiable information that should be expanded before these kinds of anecdotes leak onto this page. Peryeat (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree Correctioner12345 (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcia Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220090300/http://www.wmeentertainment.com/marcia_clark/summary/ to http://www.wmeentertainment.com/marcia_clark/summary/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Portrayals
I think media portrayals should be added, Eg: Sarah Paulson did an excellent job in the netflix miniseries on OJ Simpson murder trial. Correctioner12345 (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They are already mentioned at Marcia_Clark.— TAnthonyTalk 03:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP VIOLATION?
Article smears Clark as following:


 * In his book Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder, Vincent Bugliosi blames the acquittal of O. J. Simpson on the lack of trial preparation by Clark and Christopher Darden, prosecutorial incompetence, and lack of a trial work ethic.

Could it be that by attributing the judgmental smear to Bugliosi, this is a tactic used to insert a smear into an article while avoiding responsibility for the smear? Is this proper for our Wikipedia encyclopedia? Do we want pejorative opinions from sources which are not presenting objective facts, but negative opinions?(PeacePeace (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC))