Talk:Murder of Kristin Smart

Neutral Point of View
This page is heavily biased in the assumption of guilt of the Paul character. This does not agree with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. --Nutschig 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a POV-section template to the section heavily related to the Paul character. I will also work on breaking this page's long paragraphs into more readable ones. Any ideas about how to expand this page? I'll try and get more info from the campus police on this, I'm a first year at Cal Poly. --Nutschig 10:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll get to the bottom of the Neutral Point of View. I go back to campus on January 2nd and plan on getting the public report on this incident, so far I have only changed grammatical and the outlandish sentences on this page. Looking back over the past few hundred edits, there is only one unregistered IP who started this page and has been trimming it to their point of view this entire time. It's a dynamic IP, so there is no real way of contacting them besides using this talk page.

I ask whoever wrote this article to let the Wikipedians conform it into the standard Wikipedia format, unbiased and positively objective.+ --Nutschig 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Flores has not been charged or convicted in her disappearance or presumed death so I don't think his name should be included at all in this Wikipedia article. 208.44.84.138 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless, Flores was a major figure in the initial investigation and is named by reliable sources. The article does not suggest he was guilty. See WP:BLPCRIME for the relevant policy. clpo13(talk) 21:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It is also extremely biased towards the police, in that it is very gentle on their inadequate investigation and rather lavish about the money spent on the case. (I cannot edit the article on this device without great difficulty, hence just mentioning this here.) Salopian (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Bad, bad, bad
This article is really, really bad. Besides the really bad fact that it's insinuating the guilt of one of the characters without backing it up with sources, there are all sorts of pointless wikilinks (it's not wikilinking an article to just put brackets around random words), it's not written in an encyclopedic tone, and there's probably too much detail for an encyclopedia article anyway. I tried to start cleaning this up, but I got discouraged after just a few minutes. Hopefully someone else will step up and help out here, and I'll try to get back to it when I can. —Cleared as filed. 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Date accuracy
From the FBI kidnap site, it says she disappeared on May 25, 1996 at 2 a.m. That date isn't Spring Break (usually in mid-late March at Poly), that was the Friday evening-Saturday morning of Memorial Day weekend that year. The first few paragraphs of the article need fixing to account for that, but I don't know the underlying factual details. E.g. " she had broken up for the spring quarter break and attended a birthday party of a fellow student. " Broken up what, with who, and how is it relavant to events roughly 8 weeks later? I think we all see the article needs a massive re-edit, but who knows what it shoudl really say?-- Bill 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Civil Case
This statement from the article is problematic:


 * Kristin's parents, Denise and Stan Smart, took a civil case of wrongful death against Paul Flores in 2005, but dropped it after Flores pleaded the fifth amendment.

That would not prevent them from getting a judgement against him, in fact, it would help. The standard of proof is lower in a civil case. I'm not even sure a person CAN pleade the 5th in civil court. If he was named as defendant, he is compelled to testify and doesn't get to choose not to testify as he would if he were a defendant in a criminal proceeding. In short, this statement needs clarification and a citation. Lisapollison 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another comment: There's a video of Flores on YouTube giving a deposition in 1997, for what is identified as a "civil wrongful death" case brought by the Smith family. He "took the fifth" repeatedly. So I don't know why it says 2005 in the Wikipedia article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiYtXxV-rzA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.32.12.19 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Family Guy?
In the article, it says that Tim Davis was in inspiriation for Peter Griffin on "Family Guy" but there is no source or any mention about it on the Family Guy wiki article. Does anyone know if this is true or not? And, if it is indeed true, does it really even belong in this article?--Audee 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

sonofsusan.com, court, and Wikipedia
According to this article sonofsusan.com's creator was found to be harassing Flores. Including this as a reference or external link could be problematic even though the Flores don't have an article here, we're still expected not to publish or link to personal information information about anyone. Anynobody 05:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Content removal
I came here to check out the situation with regards to an AN/I that was filed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kristin_Smart

I agree with user:RunCali about the material that was removed. I also felt that there was some additional material in the article that was poorly sourced and highly prejudicial against Paul Flores. Material that suggests possible crimes committed by living persons requires the highest standard of reliable sourcing at Wikipedia. See WP:BLP and WP:RS. The California Register does not appear to be a regularly published newspaper, but rather a single purpose publication dedicated to info about Kristin Smart. I believe it should be regarded as controlled by the Smart family and their friends, for Wiki RS purposes.

Hopefully the mystery will be solved soon? Interesting that after all these years, the police suddenly have a new lead. JerryRussell (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up User: JerryRussell. It's been a while since I've been at Wikipedia, so I admittedly made a mistake by neglecting to first review the talk page before taking out substantial amounts of content.


 * I do however feel strongly that it was the right decision to remove some poorly sourced content, as it was related to a living person. It's always important for Wikipedia to tread lightly in that arena when the available material is ambiguous. I'm not sure why the user felt the need to post to AN, and while I would agree that my affiliation with the university could under normal circumstances be a concern, its only relevance here is that it gained my interest in this article. I made a routine removal of content that I feel a vast majority of other editors would concur with. If that is not the case however, I'd be happy to have a discussion.


 * Thanks again for communicating with me and for your support. RunCali (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * user:RunCali, thanks for acknowledging the potential COI. I agree it's a very weak conflict, and at any rate COI editing is not prohibited at Wiki as long as edits are neutral. The new information you added to the article is very helpful.


 * Reviewing this talk page, I see that several editors have complained about a possible BLP problem, but up until now it hasn't been fully resolved. Hopefully some of the editors who have contributed to the article over the years will join us here at the talk page, if they're concerned about the content removal. JerryRussell (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I just removed a bunch of what seems to be similar material, an entire section that one author, Nelson Sloan, contributed. The problems were simply too numerous to let the content stand as it was. I did try to edit down myself, and gave up for reasons detailed below. --Fenevad (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disappearance of Kristin Smart. 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/20080829002427/http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1701-1750/sb_1729_bill_19980811_chaptered.html to http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1701-1750/sb_1729_bill_19980811_chaptered.html

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) 14:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed "Controversy" Section: Reasons
I just removed the "Controversy" section. The reason is that it was a mix of unverifiable sources (including materials cited as "personal observation"), original research, conjecture, and what reads as promotional material for Arpad Vass' grave detection machine. It looks like https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-kristin-smart-buried-in-this-backyard-neighbors-and-a-wonder-dog-say-yes could provide a citation, along with others, so the author needs to take that content and revise it to cite something others can see.

However, the level of detail about Buster and Vass’ “machine” would make them appropriate for separate articles that could be linked to for information, but the attempt to justify the dog and the technology is out of place in this article.

Note that because the section addressed living individuals by implication, it requires a high level of citation and the avoidance of personal research or non-NPOV content. The current lack of verifiable citation and the tone rendered it inappropriate here.

Note as well that the California Register does not appear to be an acceptable source: It does not seem to be currently published and its presence is as a website that seems to be dedicated almost solely to pursuing its editor’s theories about this case. Calling it a “local newspaper” does not change that it is unlikely to be seen by a neutral reader as anything other than a single-issue website designed to promote a particular viewpoint. Even if its editor is correct in his assertions (which actually seems to be more likely than not, to me), it is not a neutral source and so any citations should clarify that it represents one individual’s theory about the case.

For the author of this content, a rewrite would need to do the following:

"Based on alerts from the grave-detection dog BUSTER and from the hits from Dr. Vass's machine, there is a strong belief the body of Kristin Smart or some lingering remains of her body if it was moved, can be found in the rear left corner of the Arroyo Grande home owned by the parents of the last person seen with Kristin Smart. The Smart family sued the person of interest for wrongful death, but he invoked the 5th Amendment 27 times when deposed* and that's they way it's been since Kristin disappeared in 1996."
 * 1) Avoid making tangential claims that plead for the validity of the argument (such as the history of Buster elsewhere or Vass' statements about accuracy). These would either go in separate articles or citations, but this article is not the place to argue for this.
 * 2) Point to published and reliable sources
 * 3) Avoid any original research or conjecture. The following paragraph is an example of the kind of thing that clearly falls outside Wikipedia editorial policy:

To be clear, statements like “there is a strong belief” coupled with an assertion of fact that is as yet unverified are problematic. Who has this “strong belief”? How do we know that it is true? There is a whole lot of weasel wording in that section.

Also, the clear implication in the statement about invoking the fifth amendment is that Flores is lying. Even if true (something I have no position on), pleading the fifth is a strategy suspects and individuals take for many reasons, often on the advice of legal counsel, and in the U.S. legal system, doing so is not evidence of guilt. To use this to imply guilt – clearly the intention here – is not acceptable.

I actually took the time to try to salvage some of this by finding reliable sources to cite some of this, and was stymied. I gave up, and it is the contributor's job to get the text right, not other editors’.

Again, if you want this section to survive in some form, you must find sources that meet Wikipedia requirements for verifiability and tone down the promotional tone and attempts to imply guilt of a living individual. You can state that the dog alerted at a location and that Vass' machine indicated the same location. But what you will be left with is at most a few sentences that can be incorporated elsewhere in the article.

Fenevad (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

FBI did not inform family in January 2020
Article says: "On January 18, 2020, the Stockton Record reported that the FBI informed Smart's family that additional news about her disappearance would be coming and that the family "might want to get away for a while" but did not provide any specific information".

Stockton Record has updated their story:

CORRECTION: Jan. 22, 2020

The Smart family was contacted by a retired FBI agent who has provided general guidance to them over the years. Incorrect information was included in the print and initial online version of this article.

There's a lot of difference between "the FBI" and "a retired FBI agent who has provided general guidance to them over the years."

I'll try to correct the article but someone with more experience might want to look at the Stockton Record and write with better finesse.

172.58.107.48 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidence against main suspect
This article left me confused. If the authorities obtained search warrants against him, surely they have evidence against him (which may or may not be released to the public/media). Does Wikipedia's neutrality policy ("editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.") really mean stone cold, reported facts are to be intentionally omitted? Like if a wife has been killed, and the husband's car was found covered in blood, with the murder weapon in the front seat, Wikipedia would wouldn't report those facts so long as the husband was not yet convicted ? 135.180.193.224 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)randomperson


 * Now this criminal is convicted, but in your scenario, many do include such facts, but I routinely remove details about criminal matters that haven't been resolved in court. Accusations of the state are not conclusions of a court, and verdicts intend to be neutral in ways the claims of prosecutors may not be. I support "seriously considering" removal of details of a crime that has not been adjudicated. As a wiki, it's tempting to assemble and contextualize clues around a crime as they unfold, but an encyclopedia not only seeks concise conclusions, but also avoids overly-detailed examinations. Claiming the husband has been arrested and including details of the wife's demise is not equivalent to saying he murdered her. 97.113.63.40 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

discussed this case with his priest
The articles states that a jury member discussed the case with a priest, and asked him for guidance. Are juries typically allowed to discuss the case with outside parties? Dimadick (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah no. Sgerbic (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)