Talk:R. Budd Dwyer/Archive 1

Filter
''In 1995, rock band Filter had a hit with the song "Hey Man, Nice Shot", which, although not explicitly mentioning Dwyer, was clearly about his suicide. ''

Well, not all that clear, since I seem to recall that at the time many (younger) hearers believed it was about Kurt Cobain. --Calieber 14:58, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree (I was in high school at about that time) but it is not pure speculation, either. I have a copy of a May 1996 newspaper which contains an official statement by Filter stating that the song was "inspired" by Budd Dwyer. Thunderbunny 23:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How many PA stations? 1+5+1 = 7 != 6


 * Seven factorial does not equal six. But, seriously, I noticed this discrepancy myself and I'm not sure how to fix it.


 * Acegikmo1 06:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks like the discrepancy has been fixed by simply stating, "A number of television stations throughout Pennsylvania..." However, what might have accounted for the discrepancy in the first place is that at least one station in Youngstown, Ohio covered the news conference, thus would not count as a "Pennsylvania station".  (I believe it was WKBN, but am not sure enough of this to edit the article.)  The Youngstown station opted to edit the footage for broadcast.  However, Cleveland station WEWS aired the footage from fellow ABC affiliate WPVI without editing, but with a warning.  Meadville is in the Youngstown market, and Cleveland is close enough for the story to be of local interest there as well. -- SwissCelt 23:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Who is William Smith? He is referred to in the article but not further identified.

Bill Smith was the person who arrainged the crime and then blamed Budd. Smith and his wife were the only ones who provided first hand evidence aganst Dwyer. Smith was Republican Chairman and the unindicted co-conspirators were his key allies. I suspect that Smith was scamming the $300,000 for a run for the congressional seat that George Gekas ended up taking. If you want to know the truth you can ask Barry O'Connell or wait for the movie that was shot last year but has not been released yet. Lanny Budd 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/filter/articles/story/5925965/filter_are_back_in_the_fold - for the record Whelaro (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great work on finding that reference. I incorporated it into the article. dfg (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

budd dwyer
i find this guy a real star he seems to me to have been fitted up by people around him and was unable to prove he wasnt guilty so maybe he committed fraud but he still had a sense of humour calling a press conference to shoot yourself an "update on the situation" is hilarious maybe i've got a sick sense of humour but who doesnt agree with me that this guy was one courageous man r.i.p BUDD


 * I have a sight probem with the sentence Thinking that someone in the crowd might attempt to thwart him, Dwyer put the gun barrel into his mouth and pulled the trigger, in front of five television news cameras. Since Mr. Dwyer committed suicide and there's no way to ask him what he was thinking before pulling the trigger the phrase Thinking that someone in the crowd might attempt to thwart him, should be struck as subjective. Wjbean 23:54, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

pmj. It seems that a powerful samurai ethic pervaded Dwyer's actions. In the West, we often think of suicide as an act of cowardice, running away from responsibility. But this man, wrongfully dishonoured and faced with an unbeatable enemy, decisively proved that he had guts -- if not as literally as his oriental counterparts. Certainly his act was more powerful (and dare I suggest, graceful?) than jail and trials and retrials and eventual death in obscurity. Budd Dwyer was, in my opinion, a brave and noble man; and I take some solace in the knowledge that the unusual video footage of his last seconds will keep him in the public consciousness for many years to come. pmj 14:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * @pmj: While I agree with your sentiments of samurai-like suicide (particularly, I admire his ability to state his issues with the justice system in an eloquent way), I'm confused -- in the article there doesn't seem to be any indication that he was 'wrongfully dishonoured' as you put it.  Is there anywhere that says this (perhaps I've missed it)?  I'm really out to lunch with people's fascination with Budd Dwyer - I'm curious if there's any citable sources out there to help me out.  Thanks!  Eddie Parker 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I find that there's nothing "honorable" about samurai ethics, it's largely blind loyalty and fanaticism, and lack any of the Judeo-Christian values such as compassion and mercy. Such are the values indoctrinated into Imperial Japanese soldiers when they slaughtered over 300,000 Chinese civillians in the Nanjing Massacre, tortured Allied POWs in prison camps such as Changi, launched suicide Kamikaze attacks against Allied ships etc. Not even the Germans, who had at least at some Judeo-Christian values left even under the Nazi regime, match the level of fanaticism and pure evil of Imperial Japan.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why in the hell is it called the "ultimate act of cowardice"? I'm 99.9% sure Wikipedia doesn't call OTHER suicides this. Yeah, he was found guilty, but saying it's an act of cowardice is an opinion. Just say he shot himself in the head.24.250.68.193 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Christine Chubbuck
If it could be done in a sensitive way, a see also to Christine Chubbuck might be added.

A sea of troubles
"In late 1986, Dwyer was charged as having agreed to accept a related kickback of $300,000. Dwyer never actually received any money and some suspect that this was an elaborate scam by Torquato's attorney, William Smith, to skim a supposed bribe." - is there a source of this quite bold assertion? An authoritative source that absolves Dwyer and damns the people who he held to blame? And does his conviction still stand? Reading the article I tend to favour Dwyer, but this is an encyclopaedia entry, not a fan page. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The link to a video of the shooting doesn't work.


 * The scandal goes back 3 years. I will have to read 50-100 articles to get a solid grasp of the investigation and trial--so I'm not going to bother.  It will take too much effort to get this to encyclopedic standard.  Lotsofissues 19:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, so that's who the mysterious "Smith" is, who was to testify against Dwyer. When this was removed from the article, so too was the context indicating who Smith was.  So later in the article, we have "A plea bargain made for Torquato and Smith required them to testify against Dwyer," without really identifying the second co-defendant. -- SwissCelt 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill Smith was the person who arrainged the crime and then blamed Budd. Smith and his wife were the only ones who provided first hand evidence aganst Dwyer. Smith was Republican Chairman and the unindicted co-conspirators were his key allies. I suspect that Smith was scamming the $300,000 for a run for the congressional seat that George Gekas ended up taking. If you want to know the truth you can ask Barry O'Connell or wait for the movie that was shot last year but has not been released yet. Lanny Budd 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Locale of suicide?
I have seen differing accounts of exactly where the fatal press conference took place -- some even disputing whether it took place in Harrisburg. Was it in the state capitol building? Some other office building? Or was it in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh?


 * Unfortunately the published obits I have looked at are maddeningly unclear on this point.


 * Does someone have definitive information? Kestenbaum 00:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * IMDb.com says Harrisburg. My memory says Harrisburg; I first learned of the suicide from KDKA's Harrisburg bureau reporter.  But neither of these are definitive.  Fortunately, I was able to find the archived article from the New York Times:


 * R. Budd Dwyer, the Pennsylvania State Treasurer, whose conviction for bribery last month jolted the state's Republican Party, shot and killed himself today at a news conference in his office in Harrisburg, the state capital.


 * So, there's your definitive information. -- SwissCelt 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, that settles the city and the conceptual location -- thank you. But where was the Pennsylvania state treasurer's office located in 1987? In the state capitol building?  A specific State Treasury Building?  Some other state office building? Kestenbaum 11:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I found this photo credit, from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Paul Vathis made this photo of state Treasurer R. Budd Dwyer as he held a pistol in his hand before committing suicide during a news conference in his State Capitol office in Harrisburg, Pa. on Jan. 22, 1987. (Paul Vathis, Associated Press)"  Best I can come up with is that Dwyer killed himself somewhere in the Pennsylvania State Capitol Complex.  The Finance Building would be a good guess, as this was built in 1939 and thus was probably the location of Dwyer's office in 1987. -- SwissCelt 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You concluded correctely. The actual suicide took place in Dwyer's first floor office in the Finance Building of the State Capitol complex. I was there. --David Sollenberger —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSollenberger (talk • contribs) 10:34, June 9, 2007

Speech Transcript
based on the video of the incident I've seen, Dwyer's speech ends with "so that my family and their future families are not tainted by this injustice that has been perpetrated on me." One explanation would be that the video I saw was edited, but it could be that the speech text in the article is taken from his prepared notes, and he never got around to reading the last paragraph. Can anyone clear this up? --Osbojos 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

--After watching this video repeatedly for the last... 2 hours or so, I think that the quotation of his final words is incorrect. A few seconds after he pulled the gun out of the envelope, people started reacting. We can all hear him saying, "No. No!" repeatedly. He was going to say something else, but the people in the room wouldn't give him a chance to speak. Anyway, because of the interruptions from the people in the room, I hear him say this, "This... This will hurt somebody," and not, "This thing will hurt somebody." I don't think that he said 'thing'. I think he was just stuttering because of being interrupted. You guys give it a listen and tell me if you notice this. -- anonymous.

I agree, there is no "thing". I've also watched the video many times and he definitely says: "When I... and I... please... please leave the room if this will... if this will offend you. No... no... don't (several times)... This... this will hurt someone..." and something that is hard to understand, shortly before the shot -- Valerius Myotis 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Following "this injustice that has been perpetrated on me," Dwyer continues with this:

"We were confident that right and truth would prevail, and I would be acquitted and we would devote the rest of our lives working to create a justice system here in the United States. The guilty verdict has strengthened that resolve. But as we've discussed our plans to expose the warts of our legal system, people have said, 'why bother,' 'no one cares,' 'you'll look foolish,' '60 Minutes, 20/20, the American Civil Liberties Union, Jack Anderson and others have been publicizing cases like yours for years, and it doesn't bother anyone...'"

and then he begins calling people up and handing out envelopes. Most videos of the suicide cut this segment out for some reason, however, I have the original audio. --cmo

How disgusting is it?
I just wanted to know how disgusting the scene is. I mean does he shoot his head clean off or what?


 * It's pretty horrific. No, his head does not come off. Rather, he falls to the ground, and blood spills out of his nose covering his mouth, neck, and clothes. The blood flow out of his nostrils is like two kitchen faucets letting out water, and it continues like that for at least 10 seconds. 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen the JFK assisignation. Is it worst than that?-- HamedogTalk|@ 10:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, though I think it's fair that people have access to a text description so they can decide whether or not to watch this disturbing piece of footage. Just to add to the above description, events move too fast on the film for one to see too much graphic detail of the actual gunshot (the photos are more graphic in this regard though as noted in the article they are all black and white). The disturbing part of the video is that Dwyer is clearly still alive as he crumples to the floor, and as the camera zooms in for a closeup of his face, you can see the moment of his death where the "lights go out" for all intents and purposes. That IMO is more disturbing than the rest of it. 23skidoo 18:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For those who want to see it: (animated .gif) or  (full video.)


 * I watched the video in ~September of 2006, and I still remember it somewhat vividly. Side note: it must have been even more disturbing for those who were there in the room...  If my memory is correct, he sort of falls out of frame for a split-second after the shot.  Then the camera shows his face and body, and the blood cascading from his enormous wounds.  I agree that the sheer quantity of blood streaming- cascading all over him... is very disturbing.  Although I haven't seen the video in over a year, I seem to remember there not being any signs of consciousness at all after the gunshot.  I don't know if by "lights go out" you meant consciousness, or if you meant "transition from a massively bleeding dying man, to a dead man who is still bleeding profusely."  I could be wrong, but I don't think he was conscious at all when he was on the floor- not for more than a split-second, IMO.
 * Is it more disturbing than the Zapruder Film? Aside from the fact that it was Mr. Kennedy - on a purely human level, Mr. Dwyer's death looked much more disturbing.  Part of this might have to do with the films, rather than the actual deaths.  The Zapruder Film is from a modest distance away, and the film quality / camera quality wasn't even close to being state of the art for 1963.  And the limousine speeds off.  The Dwyer film, on the other hand, was shot by a news camera that was presumably made in 1980 to 1986.  And it was shot from across the room.  But regarding the actual videos- I assumed that it wouldn't be much gorier or disturbing than the Zapruder film, but upon watching it, I immediately realized how profoundly wrong that thought was.  It feels like you're in the room when you watch it...  :(  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was city editor of the Erie, Pa., Morning News at the time. The Times Publishing Company owned our paper and the Erie Daily Times, which was the afternoon paper. We shared the same office. The Daily Times ran the photo of Dwyer at the instant the gun went off in his mouth. It ran on Page 1, on top of the fold. No one could miss it. The photo can still be found with any search of the internet. That evening when I came to work, the telephone rang nonstop for three hours before we cut off the calls. Each caller was outraged that the photo had run at all, much less on Page 1. I apologized repeatedly. It took very little thought for us on the Morning News to decide to run the photo of Dwyer reaching into the envelope to get the gun rather than even showing it. Bill Welch Bill Welch 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider it pornography. I have watched it maybe 2 times in the last 20 years, and told some members of a college class that I was teaching that begged to see it that I wouldn't show it to them any more than I would want them to see a hard core porno film. Budd's doing that to himself, I think, was obscene. However, mores have changed in 20 years, and maybe I"m out of date, but I predict the image will stay in your brain for a long time and not be a good thing. David Sollenberger former KDKA-TV/KYW-TV Harrisburg Bureau chief (1983-87) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSollenberger (talk • contribs) 10:51, June 9, 2007


 * I strongly agree. I watched it in 2006, and I was trembling in horror and sadness...  It bothered me a LOT for several days, and its still unpleasant to think about.  Its utterly horrifying.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This footage really is graphic and horrific. I watched it (stupidly) about a week ago and it still torments me.  This video is NOT for the faint of heart and should not be casually clicked on. That warning really needs to stay.  Nostaljack 17.29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wuss. It's no worse than that historical vietnam war footage of the policeman shooting some guy in the head, infact, I've seen worse on television. Comradeash 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What you think of me couldn't possibly matter any less. We've already discussed the warning. Leave it there. Nostaljack 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard core. The shot is not as bad as Zapruder, but the blood gushing out the nose aftermath is very hardcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.20.210 (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty hardcore. I remember being surprised by the amount of blood flowing out of his nostrils. The user who referred to it as two faucets is correct, it goes like a fountain for maybe 10 seconds and then it stops, presumably when his heart finally does. Directly after he slumps down, you can see what appears to be a big diagonal fracture in his skull under the skin. His whole face kind of slips down and to the left. As for his time of death, you can clearly see from his eyes that's he's dead as a doornail the moment he hits the floor. That's the thing I remember more than anything. His eyes are fixed, dilated and vacant as the blood pours from his nose. Dead man's eyes. Nobody home. That's consistent with a shot through the mouth, which is by all accounts the most effective way to shoot one's self in the brain. Yeah, it's pretty brutal, but that's what death by gunshot to the brain looks like. Why fear firsthand knowledge? People die just like Budd every day. Rarely is death pretty, but it's not usually quite so sudden. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also note that he does it very quickly and doesn't stick the barrel all the way in his mouth. He does it in a very quick jerky motion and ends up shooting himself through the top of his mouth and out the top of his head, not the back, which probably explains why he continued to bleed. If he'd shot himself through the back of the mouth, he'd have hit his brain stem and stopped his heart instantly. Instead, he vaporized a good portion of his cerebrum and his heart didn't stop for maybe 10 seconds, which is why he bled so much. He was still clearly brain-dead from the moment he hit the floor. His shoulders can be seen to slump suddenly after a few seconds, and this is presumably the point at which his heart quit. This is consistent with reports of gunshot brain trauma showing a few seconds of abnormal posturing (decorticate or decerebrate) before relaxing permanently. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * His face also looks swollen. The facial features seem to have slumped or relax.  The footage with gory and graphic, but it's more sad than anything.  Geeky Randy (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs a broader context.
As someone who came to this page looking for *information* surrounding the events that led up to the act that Budd Dwyer is most well known for, I was kind of disappointed to find a cultish obsession with the video footage itself. Since there *is* obviously such a popular obsession, would it make sense to have a separate page for the cult object itself, so that the biography page can actually be better focused on the actual events prior to his death?

I mean, come on - a "see also" link to Christine Chubbuck? And none to anything actually related? I propose that the video is acknowledged as an iconic cult object in it's own right and given it's own page for relating it to other similar stuff, for those who are looking for that, and that the bio page be made more informative about the scandal, related to other similar political scandals, etc. Anyone agree?
 * I disagree. For better or worse, Dwyer is inextricably tied to his suicide video, and his suicide is itself inextricably linked to his political scandal. This is what he's best known for and largely what makes him notable. How many other former state Treasurers have their own wikipedia articles? I appreciate your sentiment, but to me, your proposal seems like the equivalent of having the Bruce Springsteen page link to a separate page about "the music of Springsteen." I agree the page could use more details about Dwyer himself as well as the political scandal, but the solution is to add that content, not to dismiss interest in his suicide as "cultish obsession" and move it to a sub-page. If the amount of suicide video information or other biographical information was sufficient to make the article unreasonably large, then there should be a discussion of splitting some of the video content off to a separate page, but it should certainly still be described in the main article. In the meantime, I don't believe this article is lengthy enough, or contains content unrelated enough to justify splitting into separate articles. --Osbojos (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Claim not supported by source
I removed the following bit from the article because the sentence does not seem to be supported by the source. The source is not about balancing the psychological impact of showing something problematic on television against business demands to "beat" other media outlets. And it certainly does not appear to me to anywhere suggest that one is "inevitably" favored:

Dwyer's case has become a favorite of a number of journalism professors to demonstrate that news editors (especially in the medium of television) must be prepared to make instant decisions, weighing the psychological impact on viewers against their business sense of beating other media outlets to the story, inevitably favoring the latter.

On the other hand, the source is a good source, and something useful can probably be done with it. And perhaps the original author of this bit had a good source, but accidentally linked the wrong article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right about that source not supporting that statement, but just as a note, the "inevitably favored" bit looks like non-random vandalism added in the edit immediately preceding yours. I agree that the source is good, in terms of addressing how covering similarly shocking news events affects the journalists themselves. I'll add something to that effect, but I'm sure the prose can be improved. dfg (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In pop culture
i think all those references to usage in pop culture can have their own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Why He Called The Press Conf.
At least one source I have come across indicates that media and his staff believed he was calling a press conference to offer his resignation, but I don't believe the source is the most reliable, and it does not list its sources of information, so we just don't know what people believed would be happening.

One would think, based on the facts at hand, that Dwyer would have called a press conference the day before his sentencing to announce his resignation. Normally this is what happens when a disgraced public official is about to be sent to jail. But then again, public officials don't usually eat their guns on live television, so any inference we may make based on typical scenarios fly right out the window.TheBigZzz (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He called a press conference to "give an update on the situation." What an update it was too, I was nine, and had off school that day. I couldn't watch the suicide video until I was thirty.205.244.113.226 (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Photograph
I don't think that the photograph should be of Budd Dwyer right before his suicide. That seems incredibly tacky, and besides, this article is not about the suicide, but about Budd Dwyer himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.217.126 (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is definitely a nice idea, but it's just not practical. There are not a lot of photographs of him floating around. In fact, the one that was chosen is copyrighted by the Associated Press and is used in a fair-use manner to illustrate the subject matter.--TheBigZzz (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories
I chose to undo the elimination of 'Politicians who committed suicide' even though there is also the category of 'American Politicians who committed suicide' present on this article. American politicians is a subset of all politicians. I could see why one might want an exhaustive list as opposed to just the American list.TheBigZzz (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that all of the other entries in Category:American politicians who committed suicide aren't duplicated into the parent category; similarly, British, Canadian and French politicians are also sifted out into their own subcategories. So wasn't and still isn't an exhaustive list — it's only a list of politicians from countries that haven't been given their own dedicated categories yet. There's simply no reason to treat Budd Dwyer as a unique case that's subject to different categorization rules than anybody else in the tree. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Live?
The way this article is written with regards to the live coverage makes it sounds like there was absolutely no chance for the stations to cut him off. However it sounds like there was probably a not insignificant amount of time, perhaps at least 30 seconds between the time when he took the gun and the time he shot himself. While obviously the people broadcasting the press conference might not have been expecting the need to suddenly cut the feed and so perhaps were not ready/paying attention, I would assume they could have easily cut off the feed if they had wanted to and were on the gun so to speak. Obviously footage of him with the gun would still have been broadcast but it sounds like the actual suicide could have been cut off. Nil Einne 12:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a serious problem with the way the article continues to imply that the cameras were sending a live feed back to the tv stations which was being broadcast live to the public. I can find no documentation of this.  The cameras were on obviously, but this was not being shown live, in real time, to the public.  I'd like someone to provide evidence that it was. Samclem 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kestenbaum, for the edit but I have more trouble with the immediate next part under "Aftermath." It says "A number of television stations throughout Pennsylvania carried the press conference live via feed from one of the five news cameras present, airing Dwyer's suicide before a mid-day audience without the chance of editing. Due to a major snowstorm throughout Pennsylvania that day, many home-bound school-aged children witnessed the suicide live on television."  I still want to see the proof that one of those cameras was sending a live feed back to a tv station WHICH WAS SHOWING THE PRESS CONFERENCE IN REAL TIME, thus allowing all those snow-bound kids to see it.  Can anyone name a tv station which was showing the live feed as it happened?  Any documented evidence? Samclem 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't give you such evidence; in fact, to the best of my recollection, it wasn't live. I seem to remember that footage from the shooting was aired on newscasts at noon, 5, and 6 pm... not live.  My recollection coincides with WPXI's By Williams' statement that he chose to air the shooting at noon.  Were it live, the choice would be to cut away (if there were a choice, that is). -- SwissCelt 02:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, am I allowed to go in and change the language in that section? Carefully, of course.  I mean, unless someone has proof, then the wiki article gives out incorrect information. Samclem 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do go ahead and change that section. Kestenbaum 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It definitely was NOT broadcast live. Channel 27 in Harrisburg rushed the tape over to its station (about 10 blocks away) and aired it unedited as a special bulletin (Their broadcast of it interrupted the TV show Webster which lots of kids were watching since it was a snow day and there was no school.) There was no way at that time for anyone to have broadcast it live from the capitol building other than the public tv station, and since no one expected this to happen, there were no provisions to have it aired live. All that does it make it more of an intentional decision, having shown it to the public, since they couldn't use an excuse like, "It happened before we could stop the broadcast." The 3 stations that aired the gun firing choose to do that. I have tried to correct the blatant inaccuracy that KDKA-TV and KYW-TV (the stations I was reporting for) chose not to air any of the footage. That's ridiculous. I have the aircheck to disprove that. We choose to freeze the gun in Budd's mouth and let the audio continue. It's amazing how many inaccuracies have cropped up regarding this event. I remember it, however, like it was yesterday. What I"m still waiting for is someone to do research into how many TV station crew members decided to leave the business after that incident. It definitely impacted the lives and perspectives of those who were dragged into participating in Budd Dwyer's nightmare. -David Sollenberger —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSollenberger (talk • contribs) 10:45, June 9, 2007


 * Are you kidding?!? These are "journalists" we're talking about here.  If it bleeds it leads, and Budd certainly gave them what they crave.  Interrupting an episode of Webster to show Niagra Falls to who knows how many school children?  I'm suprised nobody won a Pulitzer for that one.  Now if only more politicans (Bush, Dodd, etc.) would save face this way we'd be better off.  If nothing else it's good for ratings.


 * I WAS one of those local kids home from school on a snow day and watching tv. The program was interupted and I remember being annoyed by that. Remember that I was a kid. What I saw however affected the rest of my life. Living in "PA Dutch Country" was a sheltered life. TV didn't have violence on it either like it does today. So it was VERY traumatic. As a matter of fact, at 38 years old, I even had a nightmare last night. That's how I came to this page. Lori from Lebanon, PA


 * I was also one of the local children home from school on a snow day. I was flipping through television and somehow wound up on WITF-33, the Harrisburg PBS affiliate. I distinctly remember WITF carried the press conference live, and i witnessed the suicide live as it happened. WITF never cut away during the act and even afterward. I remember pandemonium and screaming and shrieking and uncontrollable sobbing all caught on audio and video until WITF finally cut away. I believe WHTM-27, the Harrisburg ABC affiliate aired the unedited version on their 11pm news broadcast, but not on the 6pm broadcast. WGAL-8, the Lancaster NBC station, aired only the edited version. TheBigZzz (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your memories as a child don't cut it in the world of facts. Please supply a cite, other than your memory, for your assertion the WITF-33 was showing this live.  My contention is that they WEREN'T.  You may have thought you were seeing it live, but I have no doubt you saw film at noon.  I'll change this back in a few days, unless you can provide a cite other than your memory.--Samclem (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A current citation on this article about Rapeman already notes that the press conference was covered on live television. WITF's was the only television camera covering this event, because it was not viewed by the press as a whole to be particularly noteworthy beforehand. After they learned of the suicide, every network and local television station clamored to secure an uplink. TheBigZzz (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Age?
In his final statement to the press, he said "I thank the good Lord for giving me 49 years of invigorating challenges..." but his birthday and death are listed as November 21, 1939 – January 22, 1987, making him 47 years-old at the time of his death. Huh? Drcwright (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Findagrave and published accounts (e.g., the Philadelphia Inquirer, ; the New York Times ) seem to agree on the age 47 listed in the article. The source for the quote is the video cited.  Perhaps the audio was mistranscribed.  You may want to check it.  Or maybe Dwyer flubbed his lined under pressure.  It wouldn't be the first time that has happened. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some things I can't find answers to and some additional info.
It has been well stated that Dwyer used a FMJ round. It's even evident in the video, it exited straight through the top of his skull without taking a big chunk with it. What grain bullet did he use? It is not mentioned in the article, but from what I can tell he used a model 27 Smith and Wesson. Can anyone confirm that? In the frame by frame still when he has the gun in this mouth but before he pulled the trigger, he is looking over to his right. Who was he looking at or was someone starting to come towards him? And for the person who asked if the gunshot killed Dwyer instantly or if he died later, I would say he went instantly. In the frame by frame stills you can see him begining the fall and either what is Dwyer flinching or the massive shockwave hitting his head. The next one shows him on the ground. I'd say given the velocity of this round he probably went into shock, then death right as he was begining to fall. He went quick, thats for sure.

I found this at http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Budd_Dwyer

I think it should be used to make the article a bit better. > >

"One day before sentencing, he called a press conference. Media and staff thought that it would be an announcement of Dwyer’s resignation from office. Dwyer paid special attention to the setup of the press conference arranging furniture like the table so people would keep their distance. He started a rambling 20-page, 25min, speech about the failure of justice in his case and the failure of local government in general. Those present at the conference said he appeared to be very emotional almost on the verge of tears. When some of the press started packing up their gear Budd asked them to stay, "Those of you who are putting your cameras away, I think you ought to stay because we're not, we're not finished yet,"

Continuing his speech, he stated his worry that the judge had a history of imposing "medieval sentences" and he added, "…being punished for a crime I did not commit." He urged that capital punishment be repealed because he now knew that the system could find an innocent man guilty and apologized for voting several times as a state legislator for the death penalty. "This has been like a nightmare, like a life in the twilight zone, It wouldn't surprise me to wake up this minute to find out I was home in my bed and had just had a terrible nightmare. That's how unbelievable this has been. I mean, I've never done anything wrong and yet all this horrible nightmare has occurred to me,"

As the media started to get restless, he begin to skip parts of his speech, and when he came to the last page he stopped reading. (At his press conference Dwyer had a 20 page speech given out but he had an extra page) Dwyer never read the last page, page 21, of his statement. It repeated that he would not resign. It asked that his story be told and it warned that those with weak stomachs might want to leave the room. It also contained some quotes from the book The Shame of the Cities by Lincoln Steffens. Stopping his speech he started handing out envelopes to his staff saying, "Don, there are some things for you to do [hands over the envelopes] and some other things for Joanne." He then picks up another large manila envelope and takes out a .357 Magnum revolver and continues with gun in hand, “When I… and I…” At which point the stunned media and people in the room start shouting at Dwyer to put the gun down. Dwyer responds by saying "Please leave the room if this will... if this will offend you..." The crowd pleaded with him and some tried to get approach him. Dwyer perhaps afraid that someone would take the gun responds, "...no, no, don't, don't, don't... this will hurt someone..." quickly he put the gun in his mouth, fired and slumped to the floor, dead. With blood flooding out of Budd Dwyer’s now lifeless body, one of his aides takes charge coming to the front of the room and saying,

“ All right... settle down. Don't panic, please... don't panic... don't panic. Someone call... someone call the ambulance and a doctor and the police... don't panic, please... show a little decorum, please... dear god in heaven... You've got your footage....now will you kindly wrap up your footage...get your cameras out..please get out of the room.....You've gotten all that can be gotten at this point....Paul please....Paul please [talking to journalist Paul Vathis who was still taking pictures)...please wrap up your cameras and get out of the room......Oh my god in heaven! [Looks at Dwyer's body] Dear god in heaven! Now that's enough! That's enough! Please leave the room now! ” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briancraig81 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article seems to be very vague in comparassion to what you've provided.  I have a few questions of my own though:


 * 1) Did Dwyer for sure say, "Please leave the room if this will offend you" and not, "Please leave the room if this will affect you"?
 * 2) Didn't Dwyer say, "This will hurt someone" more than once?
 * 3) Is it just me or does Dwyer's face also looks swollen after he pulls the trigger?
 * 4) Does anybody have the twenty page transcript?
 * 5) Is there a video of the entire press confrence, not just the suicide?

Lastly, I will add a few notable things I've picked up from old newspaper articles I recently read in Google.com's news archives. In January 1987 (same month Dwyer committed suicide), there is an article that says a couple of people at the confrence immediately ran out of the room as Dwyer pulled the gun from the folder. They ran out the back of the room, into a hallway screaming for somebody to call the police because Dwyer had a gun. Another article from the same month gives the name of the aide who tried to calm everyone. I think in the same article, one of the cameramen explains that Dwyer had a sincere look on his face as he pulled the trigger. So I imagine that in Dwyer's final moments, he was looking at nobody, it was just the direction he happened to be facing when he felt it was time to pull the trigger. Geeky Randy (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Was it live?
Was the broadcast live?
 * It definitely was NOT broadcast live. Channel 27 in Harrisburg rushed the tape over to its station (about 10 blocks away) and aired it unedited as a special bulletin (Their broadcast of it interrupted the TV show Webster which lots of kids were watching since it was a snow day and there was no school.) There was no way at that time for anyone to have broadcast it live from the capitol building other than the public tv station, and since no one expected this to happen, there were no provisions to have it aired live.-- David Sollenberger —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSollenberger (talk • contribs) 10:45, June 9, 2007
 * Looking in google books:
 * Live - Political corruption in America: an encyclopedia of scandals, power, and greed By Mark Grossman ;Pg 108
 * Live - Why people die by suicide By Thomas E. Joiner; Page 81
 * Not Live - Covering violence: a guide to ethical reporting about victims and trauma By William Edward Coté, Roger Simpson; Page 132
 * Not Live - Encyclopedia of television news By Michael D. Murray; Page 252
 * Two to Two but I would tend to lean towards the Encyclopedia of television news -- Esemono (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The removal of "Honest Man" from the "Aftermath" section.
I removed the feature-length documentary about Budd Dwyer because there is very little information about it.
 * The teaser-trailer claims it was supposed to be released a year ago.
 * There's been no update on its status for over a year.
 * The article shows no sources.
 * An email I sent to the supposed director of the film has failed to receive a response.

If we can confirm that things for this film are still in motion, we can put this back. I sure hope so, the film sounds really good. As a filmmaker myself, I know these types of things take a long time to get right and done. But the lack of information and update concerns me. If you have any new information regarding this film, please: -OR-
 * Undo my revisions and make sure to include sources.
 * Contact me and I'll be happy to rewrite the section.

Thank you. Geeky Randy (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE Esemono and I are having a discussion on each other's talk pages about its inclusion in this article, since there has been some significant updates since I first created this section. If you'd like to contribute, please feel free to reply here, or also at Esemono's and/or my talk page(s).  Thank you.--Geeky Randy (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While it's admirable that the two of you are discussing it to resolve the issue, because that's a point affecting the article, it should be discussed here, rather on the talk pages of individual editors.TJRC (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was me who said:


 * "Until you finally release the film, I don't think it's notable either. Anybody could've compiled that teaser trailer, film or no film. Until you finally release it, since this was supposed to be done in the Fall of 2007, and/or it appears on IMDb, it should be taken out of the article. Thank you and I look forward to the film, if it's ever released."


 * Now, just because I created that conversation doesn't mean that I can overturn the point because there's been significant updates on the film. I think you have a valid point at removing the film from the article.  But it's highly unlikely its a hoax due to the previously unreleased photographs on the website and archive news footage and interviews in the trailer.  IMDb, which I love and contribute to all the time, is somewhat unreliable because anybody can add something without citing a source.  If we were making an article about Honest Man, I'd agree with you since it hasn't been accepted to a festival yet, nor does it appear on IMDb.  But since its just a minor inclusion in a related article, I find it unencyclopedic to exclude it and I don't believe a paragraph about an upcoming film that has sources violates WP:Crystal Ball.--Geeky Randy (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But we don't know if it will be released to any festivals or if it will be ever released. The "official website" refuses to state any dates.  True it has some unpublished information about Dwyer and perhaps you could include some of that information into the article and have it cited by website although the website doesn't really pass WP:RS.  For the movie itself the dwyermovie.com website definitely doesn't pass WP:RS articles about themselves. -- Esemono (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, then it should probably be removed until further notice. I originally removed its reference when I created this section, but re-inserted it when proof of developement of the film was brought to light.  If this still doesn't qualify, then it should be removed again and then re-inserted if/when it premieres. -- Geeky Randy (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Compromise, I've removed the mention of the movie until it can be verified but I've included a mention of the dwyermovie.com site in reference to a letter Dwyer sent to Reagan. -- Esemono (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That will work just fine for the time being. Thank you. -- Geeky Randy (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Move to "R. Budd Dwyer"
In all the newspaper articles and news footage, he's known as R. Budd Dwyer. Only, does it seem, those who knew him called him Budd. I think the title of this article should be moved to R. Budd Dwyer instead of just simply Budd Dwyer. Everywhere you look, except here, the "R." is included. Comments? Geeky Randy (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed.TheBigZzz (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearing the move with administrators. Geeky Randy (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 16:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Budd Dwyer → R. Budd Dwyer — Newpapers, search engines, etc. all list him as "R. Budd Dwyer". Only here is he listed as "Budd Dwyer".. —Geeky Randy (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright of video
While it is entirely true that wikipedia is not censored and the video of his suicide should not be removed on that basis, the video was taken by Action News (as also stated in the Aftermath section) WPVI. Consequently, the video on LiveLeak is a copyright violation and in clear conflict with WP:YT and WP:ELNEVER. Unless someone provides a good argument for why these should be discounted, I will remove the video link within a few days. • Rabo³  • 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. • Rabo³  • 14:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reinstated the link. Action News can't possibly hold the (c) because, as the article to which you link says, Action News is a reporting style, not a company. Unless there's an identifiable (c)-holder, there's not an identifiable (c)-violation. --Arkelweis (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake: It was WPVI (which use the Action News format); must have copied and pasted the wrong word or something like that. Regardless, that still leaves the copyright issue of the video at the exact same spot = WP:ELNEVER. It should be noted, of course, that if a legit site hosting the video can be found (e.g. WPVI-TV or one of the other TV networks present when in happened), it can be used. Basically the same as the video addition of the death of Nodar Kumaritashvili where you found a legit version after the first version had been removed due to the copyright issues. • Rabo³  • 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * are you sure it was published by WPVI-TV, and not one of the other broadcasters who broadcast his death and/or the cameraman (there's no WPVI-TV watermark, for example)?
 * being published before 1 March 1989, it requires an explicit (c) notice or registration with the US copyright office within 5 years, otherwize it falls into the public domain. I can't see any (c) notice, nor find it in the US(C)O database, nor check further without knowing for sure who the publisher was, so I'm assuming it's public domain. I'll lay off putting the link back in for now, tho.
 * useful links:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkelweis (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am sure; not that it would matter, as the work of other pro station also would fall under WP:ELNEVER. As all pro stations (at least all I am familiar with), the full copyright notice is in the end of a program, and (for obvious reasons) it's not the entire news program of that day that has been widely shared. • Rabo³  • 16:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it does matter, as it makes it harder to check whether, for example, they did claim (c) after every news broadcast. Yes, nowadays they mostly do, but was that common in 1987 in Pennsylvania? And did WPVI-TV do it?
 * A few issues I have with assuming we can't link to this:


 * Basically, without knowing whether (c) was actually claimed, should we assume that it was, or assume that it wasn't?
 * Being a video of an event that happened at a press-conference, is it copyrightable? (i.e., is it 'creative' or merely 'factual'?)
 * Is it fair use? In favour of it being fair-use:
 * the video is not available from the original publisher
 * the video is already widely available/commonly distributed
 * The clip is used in a non-profit way
 * The clip is used for the purposes of news (liveleaks is a news site) or for educational purposes (we are an encyclopaedia).


 * I'd rather not assume (c) where the law doesn't deem it in the public's best interest to award (c)... --Arkelweis (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (so basically: is it copyrightable? if so, is it copyrighted? and if so, can we use it anyway ;) --Arkelweis (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was from another pro station. I only stated that it would have been of limited importance if it had been from another station as WP:ELNEVER would have been the same. I do not know if you lived in the late 80s, but this is not before the concept of copyright became clear to just about anyone working professionally with media (unlike in e.g. the early 70s, where copyright still was a somewhat unclear term to all but the biggest players). To my knowledge, fair use (which – as you know – is open to some interpretation) is not a term wikipedia operates with in external links; at least not unless a fair use rationale is provided on the site hosting the media. Indeed, due to the international scope, Wiki commons, which hosts the majority of media used in wiki, does not allow fair use at all. Regardless, it should be pointed out that "The clip is used in a non-profit way" would not apply, as both liveleak and wikipedia are commercial (that wikipedia is commercial often confuse new uploaders of media to wiki, especially media listed under CC. Media only allowing for non-commercial cannot be uploaded to wiki). •  Rabo³  • 20:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some comments in response to Arkelweis....
 * "being published before 1 March 1989, it requires an explicit (c) notice..." Generally, the copyrighted work is not the individual clips on a newscast, but the newscast in its entirety. Such newscasts almost always concluded with a copyright notice being displayed as part of the credits, meeting this condition.  Even if you consider the clip a separate work, it would be considered a contribution to a collective work, the newscast; and under § 404(a) of the copyright act, a notice on the collective covers the individual contributions such as this one.
 * "or registration with the US copyright office within 5 years..." This has never been a requirement for copyright. Pre-1978 (which does not apply here) there had been an alternate route for certain works that were not offered for sale, to obtain copyright by registration (§ 12 of the 1909 Copyright Act); but in any event that did not remove the obligation to include a copyright notice on published copies.  There was no requirement for registration, and certainly nothing about registering within 5 years (within 5 years of what?).
 * All that being said, given that the footage is unique and historical, I would expect use of it to be a fair use. The closest case I can think of to this one is the Zapruder film of Kennedy's assassination; and use of that has been held to be fair use.  Nimmer points to the Zapruder film (as well as news photos of the My Lai massacre) as examples of news-related works, the uniqueness of which causes uses such as this to be non-infringing fair use.  I say that the link should remain as likely not pointing to an infringing site.  TJRC (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: the 5-year thing:

According to every piece of advice i've read (including wikipedia's own (c) advice), between 1978 and 1 March 1989, something required specific (c) notice or registration within 5 years (of publication) in order to avoid falling into the public domain; however, IANAL

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/ (circ3, page 5):

In all other cases of omission in works published before March 1, 1989, to preserve copyright: The work must have been registered before it was published in any form or before the omission occurred, or it must have been registered within five years after the date of publication without notice; and The copyright owner must have made a reasonable effort to add the notice to all copies or phonorecords that were distributed to the public in the United States after the omission was discovered. If these corrective steps were not taken, the work went into the public domain in the United States five years after publication. At that time all U. S. copyright protection was lost and cannot be restored.

Implimented by "The 1976 Copyright Act [which] attempted to ameliorate the strict consequences of failure to include notice under prior law. It contained provisions that set out specific corrective steps to cure omissions or errors in notice".

--Arkelweis (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to me putting the link back in? --Arkelweis (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done --Arkelweis (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: would people stop adding warning messages to the link. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Video warning
This is in response to user:fightingforinjustice's edit summary comment for edit 16:04, June 15, 2007. He states "rv; well it doesn't. It is simply done as an emphasis, and there is no wikipedia policy to state it is forbidden to capitalize a warning)" Bolded all caps looks unprofessional. Remember, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just some random web page. Other than maybe for a heading, have you ever seen bolded all caps in an encyclopedia? Just because there isn't an explicit wikipedia policy against something doesn't mean it's acceptable. Further, even if you disagree that "WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT" looks unprofessional, please note that I left the warning there, albeit not in all caps. The warning is no less legible simply because it isn't in all caps, and in all caps, a reader gets the distinct impression that wikipedia is screaming at them. Personally, I don't even thing a warning is necessary. Shouldn't it go without saying that a suicide video is graphic? Thus I think my edit is a fair compromise and I suggest users think very carefully and justify themselves on the talk page before changing it back. --Osbojos 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Although I don't see an issue with including a warning, I don't believe it should be all-caps or bolded. To format it as such is completely unencyclopedic. PaladinWhite 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in capital letters for emphasis and people don't have to feel like they're being yelled at because it is in parenthesis. If it was a message board then, yes, I would say all capitals is like yelling.  But this is not the case.  Fighting for Justice 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The link you refer to in your most recent edit WP:NOTPAPER refers only to article size and number of topics. Read it again if you don't believe me.
 * All Capital letters, outside of a title or heading is considered yelling in nearly all contexts, not just message boards. Find another example of bolded all caps used for emphasis in a wikipedia article.
 * The idea of discussing this issue on the talk page was to reach a consensus before making any further edits. Your argument directly above doesn't resolve the issue. Clearly, at least one other user PaladinWhite believes that bolded all caps is excessive.
 * Finally, in your edit summary you argue that it should remain bolded all caps because "It's been like that for months." That doesn't mean its proper, it just means no one has bothered to correct it. One could use that same reasoning to argue that an article should remain a stub, or retain a factual error or POV tone - after all "It's been like that for months." --Osbojos 04:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Daniel Pearl The words "Explicit Content" is capitalized. THe best compromise I can think of is this: The word "WARNING" in capitals and the rest of the statement as "Extremely Graphic Footage".  Keep it all bold.  Fighting for Justice 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with "Fighting". The footage is completely disturbing and, what's worse, it goes fast.  Even if you want to "chicken out" after you've clicked on it, you can't.  By putting it in "bold" print, my hope is that those who might be "riding the fence' concerning this footage might think better of viewing it.  I wish I had.  user: Nostaljack
 * Ok, I can deal with this compromise. --Osbojos 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am so confused right now: why the hell is a video of a man commiting suicide allowed on here anyway?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.219.166 (talk • contribs) 14:34, October 17, 2007


 * Because Wikipedia is not censored. Mushroom (Talk) 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea but I bet most people who clicked on it wished that they hadn't!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Moshe. That video shocked the living hell out of me.  The video coupled with a description of what he did is a redundant redundancy.  There should be an adverb of some sort in front of the word graphic.  Warning: Extraordinarily Graphic seems more appropriate.  Please consider this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.124.95 (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, what exactly were you expecting? It's a video of a suicide! Either way, thank (most of) you for suggesting beefing up the warning, rather than censoring ;) --Arkelweis (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would like to add I watched it out of morbid curoisty many years ago, and it has stayed with me since. Unless your an island, it will haunt you. R.I.P. Honest Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.43.36 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. I watched it in ~1989, from a VHS copy as a teenager, and I can remember the details like it was yesterday. I'm in favor of a very explicit warning. 67.168.162.113 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Did he read that whole thing?
I've read accounts that said Dwyer only read a small portion of his prepared statement and then pulled out the gun. Just for the sake of accuracy are we sure the comments attributed to him here were actually all spoken and not later read in the statement he'd written down? 68.146.64.9 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No. He read much of the prepared text, but we definitely skipping through it.  A special feature on Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer actually shows this.  However, in a more direct response to your question; the first section of the quote here was spot shortly before he pulled the gun out, and the second part of the quote (broken in the article by a paragraph) was the last page of his prepared text that was not read.  The article specifies this pretty accurately.  Geeky Randy (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Organ donor?
He handed an aide his organ donor card, clearly with the intention of his organs being used to help others. Do we know if he was actually able to donate... were his wishes respected, did he save lives? Beccaviola (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An aide said later that Dwyer's corneas were made available for transplants, but his other organs could not be used because too much time elapsed before his body was removed.
 * http://members.fortunecity.com/budd3/pi.html -- Valerius Myotis (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP: Death assessment commentary
The article was assessed as C-class, as it lacks in-line citations in several paragraphs or sections. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Because he died in office"?
I recall that a Philadelphia Enquirer article at the time made the point that Mr. Dwyer would have known that according to Pennsylvania law his pension would be cancelled as soon as he were convicted, but he was not considered convicted until his trial completed, including the sentence. Perhaps someone with better research skills than mine can find the reference. "Because he died before sentencing" would make much more sense than "because he died in office." 71.175.132.91 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bed Bugg has a thing for Bud...
Why is the profile pic of this man his death portrait?

I suppose his suicide is the only notable reason for a Wikipedia entry...(of course it is).

I attempted to add an official Penn State Treasurer picture... but my more astute bedbug colleague has reverted it to Budd's act of death. So sorry I am a censer... just wished to place his sad death picture in a different section than his profile.

By the way..watch the acclaimed documentary "Honest Man...The Life Of R. Budd Dwyer (2010)" I used to view Budd as a carnival sideshow... No more...shame on me and shame you bedbug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosware (talk • contribs) 01:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was one photo and you zapped it. You posted no photo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you deleted the photo without adding one. Stop it already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Honest Man: The Life of R.Budd Dwyer
To the person who deleted the reference to the documentary:

I would appreciate if you kept this entry posted. I’ve spent over 4 years making the film. Over the course of shooting the 15 interviews with friends, family and CTA employees alike, I feel that this project is very relevant to the "Budd Dwyer Story". Aside from the vast amount of information I’ve accumulated I have also acquired hundreds of photos, and documents. I have every intention to post these items on the wiki page as long as my entry can stay. It’s only fair (and it’s extremely annoying to have to repost the same entry over and over). Thanks for your cooperation.
 * What's being "fair" got to do with it? Wikipedia wasn't created as an advertisement site.  If you want to have your video listed then add something new to the article from your movie, something nobody knew and then reference this new fact with the video.  Then everyone is happy. -- AperfectHell 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Until you finally release the film, I don't think it's notable either. Anybody could've compiled that teaser trailer, film or no film.  Until you finally release it, since this was supposed to be done in the Fall of 2007, and/or it appears on IMDb, it should be taken out of the article.  Thank you and I look forward to the film, if it's ever released. Geeky Randy (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am SURE Dwyer is a guilty thief, and I hate pigs like him (and the Alaska republicans) who are destroying my country by treating it as their own personal feeding trough. NEVERTHELESS, Integrity (who often irritates me in this way) demands that I strongly advocate the inclusion of this film in the Dwyer article. Why?  BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT. It contains material which would clearly be critical for anyone researching Dwyer, and is likely to be the ONLY source for much information.  That is ALL that is important. The fact that I hope nobody watches the film is IRRELEVANT.  And the fact that it would help someone else (the film maker) as an unintended side effect is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Not all unintended consequences are bad.  Techno Faye Kane  01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple of things I must address. If  Techno Faye Kane  is referring to the OP, please only use a single colon to respond to the OP.  You used two colons, so it appears like your post is a response to mine.  If your intention was the latter, than I ask you to please not respond to me with your liberal bullshit.  Liberals are self-rightious and conservatives are selfish.  This has nothing to do with politics, so stop talking about your country.  Here are the facts: 1) Dwyer was found guilty, 2) Dwyer claimed the opposite, and 3) There was never any money.  These are the facts.  Whether Dwyer took the bribe is up for debate, but its a fact his hand came nowhere near the money.  So there is some logic to support Dwyer's side of the story.  You should do more research before you make a conclusion; I know you're entitled to an opinion, but so is every moron, therefore your opinion is invalid.  The other thing I'd like to address is the film Honest Man.  While I'm anxious, excited and eagerly awaiting this film, I have seen no update on it.  It was supposed to be released over two years ago.  The only notable things that have been made to the public are old pictures of Dwyer posted on the director's blog that hasn't been updated in almost a year.  Geeky Randy (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm mistaken and am reading this wrong, you placed your comment ("Until you finally release the film...") a full three months after TechnoFaye Kane's, but above his. You then claim that he's responding to you, when he's responding to AperfectHell? Perhaps during the intervening one year and eight months you forgot you placed the comment where you did, and didn't check the date it was added? -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That's it on the aftermath?
This article makes it almost seem as if Budd Dwyer's suicide had no effect on anything. For example, no comment whatsoever by President Reagan? No memorials? The aftermath sections makes it seem like "Budd shoots himself. Some broadcaster decide what footage is allowed to air. His wife gets money. A bunch of college douchebags crack some jokes. America gets on with its life". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.34.162 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, his suicide note specifically requests that there be an aftermath of judicial reform, but the aftermath section here makes no reference to that one way or the other. I am far less concerned with the debate on showing live footage to children home from school than I am with whether or not this event had a political impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.146.172 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's it in the aftermath section because that was the aftermath. If there were memorials, they were likely private and probably not covered by the media and can't be sourced. Like it or not, America did get on with its life (whatever that means). Just because Dwyer requested something in his suicide note doesn't mean the request was granted. Do you think one man's suicide is really going to change years of supposed corruption in the justice system? It still goes on today so you got your answer about his request. Dwyer's notability comes from his his very public suicide. Very doubtful that many people would be reading up on Dwyer if he simply left office in disgrace and lived out the rest of his life - in jail or not. The aftermath section covers what the story caused which is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.176.240 (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The section as is covers only popular reactions, which is undue WP:WEIGHT. A public official embroiled in a big scandal blows his brains out on TV, and there are no official reactions? The judge just ignores the fact that the guy he was about to sentence offed himself in front of rolling cameras? There are no official reactions to his death at all? Just some people hemming and hawwing about suicide on the television and some crude jokes? I'm not buying it. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). TJRC (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In short, Lothar is free to do some research to try and fix Budd's "weight problem". I googled [Budd Dwyer official reaction] and I didn't see much of anything that qualified. This one blog is somewhat interesting, in that it says one reaction was that the press corps in general switched from black-and-white to color film, presumably in case something like this happened again. But to find truly "official" reaction, you'd probably have to go the library and search the microfilm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture
If anyone wants to take a stab at a really good "In popular culture" section (as distinguished from the typical list of episodes of Seinfeld and The Simpsons we see all too often), the book Explaining Traditions: Folk Behavior in Modern Culture has, based on what I can see in a Google Books preview, a substantial discussion of Dwyer's suicide and its impact on popular culture; it appears to cover distasteful jokes, the "Hey Man, Nice Shot" song (and video), and other elements. See TJRC (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Overlooked key details
I think the Wikipedia section on the case is missing important points. This is a Q&A from a guy who was at the trials, it covers subtle motivations and context for the legal tragedy that took place:

http://www.persiancarpetguide.com/sw-asia/Friends/I_knew_Budd_Dwyer/I_knew_Budd_Dwyer_I_was_at_the_Trial.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.214.254.20 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Time of shot vs. time of death.
When exactly was the press conference? The article notes that the conference was held on January 22, but does not mention a specific time during the day. The article also says Dwyer died at 11:31 a.m. at Harrisburg Hospital, but does not note a date. I'm wondering if doctors kept Dwyer alive through the night, or if the conference was simply held very early in the day with Dwyer dying hours or minutes after being shot.

--I would almost assume that he died minutes after. He was probably transported to the hospital and called very shortly after. With the caliber of weapon and the blood loss, I can't imaging that he would have survived. If he was alive on arrival of EMS, he probably died on the way in.

--Besides artificial life support, there's really no way to keep someone alive after they've painted half their brains on the ceiling. When someone is shot in the brain, it is not the bullet that instantly kills them, its the shock wave it sends out. But rest assured, he was dead when he closed his eyes after hitting the floor.

Umm he died instantly, probably before he hit the ground, .357s and brains don't mix. Well, they do, but not with good results to the owner of the brain. Supra guy 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

--I don't think its even slightly plausible that he died in or on the way to a hospital. He died on the floor of the room where the press conference was held; possibly as he was falling down. Although there are stories of guillotine executionees moving their eyes and lips for ~20 seconds after being decapitated, their brains are generally not directly cut by the blade. The shot caused an enormous amount of brain damage AND only a modestly slower rate of blood loss than what a decapitation victim would have. The brain damage alone, in my non-medical guesstimate, would have caused him to lose consciousness almost instantaneously. There are no signs of consciousness AT ALL while he is on the ground, and it even seemed like he wasn't conscious as he was falling (though its hard to tell, because he kind of falls out of the frame for a moment while the cameraman re-centers on him.) I don't think that A-N-Y medical technology, even in 2008, could have even managed to get him into a "vegetative state." It seemed like at least two liters of blood was lost in just a few seconds. It was probably enough to cause massive shock and cardiac arrest- when the blood stopped cascading, I'd guess that that was about when his heart stopped beating. At least he didn't seem to have suffered for more than a split-second... R.I.P. Budd... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - if you watch the video footage, his eyes are open while the blood is flowing from his nose, but the blood stops flowing after a few seconds, and he moves slightly. I would say that is the moment of death.Sdacj (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Because nobody in Harrisburg knows how to take a fucking pulse and declare him dead immediately after the fatal self-inflicted wound. 73.165.97.80 (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Was he ever proven innocent?
Did anyone start a fresh investigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.45.221 (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I was wondering after reading this article. Captain Quirk (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course he was innocent. William Smith -- the lead witness who provided testimony that ultimately led to his conviction, admitted to lying under oath.

Most of the page is editable but not the header; I request that, in the header, the sentence 'On that day, Dwyer called a news conference' be changed to 'On that day, Dwyer had called a news conference' -- the former suggests that he called the press conference *that day* which I find truly hard -- nay impossible -- to believe. Certainly he knew exactly what he was doing and in order for the press to be available he must have called for the press conference *before* that day. Theta Chi forever. (Theta Chi -- ØX -- is Greek for (phonetically) 'Therapucis Chiar' which translates to 'Extend a helping hand.') 73.165.97.80 (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * as it seems common knowledge that he was innocent as the main witness had lied, I included that in the head section. I hope it is OK. Really coudn't leave that standing there like this. if anyone disagrees, please inform me before removing my added sentence. --Earlyspatz (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So if the key witness lied under oath that means that he is guilty of the crime of perjury? Was he ever taken to court for that, his perjury resulted in the death of an innocent man. Mr. Dwyer died because, and to bring light to the fact that our justice system failed. The only paltry recompense that the survivors can make is to see justice through. There needs to be something included in either aftermath or legacy that clearly identifies the consequneces of that days events beyond the media and culture impact. Was there and real politcal reform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.70.9 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

guilty or not?
German magazine Der Spiegel currently reports that afterwards he was found to be innocent. However, the :en-article is still written as he would be guilty. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * However der Spiegel seems to refer that conclusion to quotes in "An Honest Man," which would make that the primary reference and would make the Spiegel article subject to all reservations that apply to "An Honest Man." 71.175.132.91 (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What reservations? Smith himself said he lied under oath. Are you saying the documentary somehow fabricated that? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Suicide types?
Dwyer was a human being. He is not a concept, a method of suicide. He wasn't even the first to do what he did (anyone remember Christine Chubbuck?). This category is inappropriate for this page, but I can't remove it since it appears to be embedded as part of something else and neither does it appear in the wikicode with the categories nor can HotCat remove it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. It turns out someone had put Category:Filmed suicides in curly braces rather than straight brackets. For some reason this then took the categories that "Filmed suicides" was itself in and put them on Dwyer's page, as if it were some strange template. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Typo at "our plans to exposes"
I believe the word "exposes" is a typo. I haven't edited it, as I'm not sure if it's a direct typo or a copy error? Can someone verify? Google search suggests "to exposes" is a common quote. I haven't found "to expose" anywhere, however, these quotes with typo may be from the same erroneous source, perhaps even originating from wikipedia. Also, if a typo, would inclusion of [sic] be indicated for a direct typo. I am not an editor, so someone please help.

Incorrect exit wound statement
(Disclaimer: graphic video attached) In the section Public suicide the statement: "One camera, positioned to Dwyer's right, zoomed in on his lifeless body shortly after he fell and showed the exit wound in the back of his head as well as a cascade of blood that continued to pour from his nose for several seconds" is incorrect. Dwyer fell facing the camera to his right, making it impossible to show "the exit wound in the back of his head"; which actually was at the top of his head caused by a direct shot aimed up through the top of the mouth clearly shown in a second video taken face-on, revealing blood flowing down the left side of Dwyer's head from the top. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In gathering research on the subject of the correct exit wound, not just based on video evidence, but also sourced, it would seem that a catch-22 has occurred stemming from an editing here on WP. As is stated in numerous online dictionaries and encyclopedias, the exit wound has remained "on top of the head". However, since the edit here from "on top of the head" to "back of the head"; online sources have drawn from this stating reference gathered from WP with the exact wording: "... as well as a cascade of blood that continued to pour from his nose for several seconds". Due to this quoting, reliable sources cannot be found without linking it back to WP. Regardless, it is clear from the statement within the article and the existing video that no exit wound can be seen from the camera to the subject's right. It is impossible. Only the camera facing forward reveals the position of the gun and the exit wound and blood stream path down the left side of the head and face. I propose to correct this within the article with cited sources. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The section Public suicide is not the place for YouTube trivia and redundant links to internet videos revealing the subject's suicide. I have moved them to External links and reduced them to a sufficient number (2) showing both camera angles. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody on reddit can figure out what that third paragraph is trying to say.
It says that it was misreported that Smith said lied. Then it says, actually he did lie, but only about the lie the previous sentence said was misreported as a lie. "It was misreported that ... he had lied under oath about Dwyer taking a bribe" then it says "In fact, ... he had lied ... when he testified that he had not offered Dwyer a bribe." And finally "He admitted that he testified against Dwyer in hopes of receiving a reduced sentence..." We can't figure out if this means the witness recanted or if that recantation is a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.49.229 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

William T. Smith (in the documentary "Honest Man: The life of R. Budd Dwyer" or elsewhere) has never recanted his testimony that he gave against Dwyer at Dwyer's trial. Smith has maintained that he offered a bribe to Dwyer and that Dwyer agreed to accept the bribe. Smith admitted- as he did at Dwyer's trial- that he had lied at his own trial when he denied that he offered Dwyer a bribe. Smith did say that he regretted ever offering Dwyer a bribe, and regretted his decision to testify against him, because he now feels responsible for his death. In the documentary "Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer" Smith stated: "I testified that I didn't offer him (Dwyer) the bribe, but in fact I did". Again, Smith stated "[if I offered Dwyer a $300000 contribution to his campaign] I felt surely he'd throw me out of the (Dwyer's) office...I went into Budd's office at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and I said 'Budd, I don't know how to tell you this but my client wants to make a $300000 contribution to you if he gets his contract'...and I said 'I'm sure you don't want to do this'...and Dwyer responded 'I don't know, why wouldn't I?, it sounds pretty good to me'. I was shocked when he said that".Stanzsd 05:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanzsd (talk • contribs)

Bribery Investigation and conviction should be balanced
For the sake of balance, it should also be noted that 1). upon an FBI investigation, a memo was found in CTA's John Torquato's house detailing a $300000 kickback to go to Mr. Dwyer. 2). Before awarding the contract to CTA, Dwyer met with Arthur Young Company representatives, who told Dwyer they could perform the FICA recover at a lower price, and as fast as CTA. Despite this information, he awarded CTA the contract. 3). Mr. Dwyer stated that he awarded CTA the contract on the basis of his Task Force recommendation. This conflicts with the fact that Mr. Dwyer personally handled all matter regarding CTA for a week before signing off on the contract.https://www.dropbox.com/s/v8p2mz0824pe5gi/Dwyer_Indictment.pdf?dl=0 4). Contrary to Mr. Dwyer's claims about a "Thornburgh-West conspiracy" against Dwyer, West was investigated after Dwyer's death and cleared of any wrongdoing by Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility). It was also revealed that West investigating Dwyer BEFORE Dwyer's clash with Thornburgh. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01624198 . 5). Mr. Dwyer's claims contained in the speech he delivered at his final press conference were investigated by the FBI and found to be baseless. https://archive.org/details/BuddDwyer .Stanzsd 20:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanzsd (talk • contribs)

William T. Smith never recanted his testimony that convicted Dwyer
Regarding the erroneous information in the third paragraph of this entry: I have reproduced each statement and then demonstrated why it is false:

"William T. Smith, whose testimony was largely used to obtain Dwyer's conviction, admitted in a documentary about Dwyer that he had lied under oath regarding Dwyer's acceptance of bribes in order to receive a reduced sentence"

In the documentary "Honest Man" Smith states that he lied at his own trial when he stated that he did not give Dwyer a bribe.

"Smith acknowledges, as he did at Dwyer's trial, that he had lied in his own earlier trial when he testified that he had offered Dwyer a bribe".

Yes, Smith acknowledged in "Honest Man" that had lied at his own earlier trial: "I testified that I didn't offer him (Dwyer)the bribe, but in fact I did (offer Dwyer the bribe)".

"He admitted that he testified against Dwyer in hopes of receiving a reduced sentence and to spare his wife from being prosecuted for her role in the conspiracy, and expressed his regret for that decision and the role it played in Dwyer's death"

No factual basis to this assertion.

The above third paragraph has been frequently cited as to "evidence" of Dwyer's "innocence". I recommend the paragraph be written stating "Contrary to popular belief, Smith never recanted his testimony against Dwyer in Dwyer's second trial. After Smith's own trial, Smith has always maintained he offered Dwyer a bribe".Stanzsd 09:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanzsd (talk • contribs)

"Decades later, the prosecution's primary witness, William T. Smith, whose testimony was largely used to obtain Dwyer's conviction, admitted in a documentary about Dwyer that he had lied under oath regarding Dwyer's acceptance of bribes in order to receive a reduced sentence. Smith acknowledges, as he did at Dwyer's trial, that he had lied in his own earlier trial when he testified that he had offered Dwyer a bribe. He admitted that he testified against Dwyer in hopes of receiving a reduced sentence and to spare his wife from being prosecuted for her role in the conspiracy, and expressed his regret for that decision and the role it played in Dwyer's death."

The above paragraph contains false information and should be deleted. See information below.Stanzsd 05:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanzsd (talk • contribs)

Stanzsd 05:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC) == Contention over witness recanting testimony == The introduction asserts in the third paragraph that William T. Smith did not recant his testimony, however the citation links to an article saying William T. Smith did recant his testimony. If the article asserts the testimony was not recanted, then an appropriate citation saying this should be cited. Not a citation saying the exact opposite. Is there a citation supporting what the intro asserts?

There is NO citation that supports what the intro asserts. There was two trials. One was Smith's, the second was Dwyer's. In Smith's trial he denied giving Dwyer a bribe. However, in Dwyer's trial (which came after Smith's) he testified that he did indeed offer a bribe. He has never recanted this testimony, as the introduction would have one believe. As I mentioned, Smith stated in said documentary: "I testified that I didn't offer him (Dwyer)the bribe, but in fact I did". Smith here is referring to his first trial. In the said documentary, Smith goes on to reiterate- not recant- his testimony in the second trial- Dwyer's trial-- that he did in fact offer Dwyer a bribe. Contrary to what the introduction states, Smith never has stated that he "lied under oath regarding Dwyer's acceptance of bribes in order to receive a reduced sentence". If you listen to what Smith says in the documentary, he states that he regrets offering Dwyer the bribe: "To the day I die, I'll regret that I did it," Smith said about offering Dwyer the bribe. The article cited (and the author has now been contacted)is simply wrong. Many people on the net now believe Smith recanted his testimony, but this is false.Stanzsd 18:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The page on William T. Smith asserts he did recant his testimony. This seems to be a material issue, and this bad citation needs to be corrected or the assertion in this article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steampowered32 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This information is false. William T. Smith (in the documentary "Honest Man: The life of R. Budd Dwyer" or elsewhere) has never recanted his testimony that he gave against Dwyer at Dwyer's trial. Smith has maintained that he offered a bribe to Dwyer and that Dwyer agreed to accept the bribe. Smith admitted- as he did at Dwyer's trial- that he had lied at his own trial when he denied that he offered Dwyer a bribe. Smith did say that he regretted ever offering Dwyer a bribe, and regretted his decision to testify against him, because he now feels responsible for his death. In the documentary "Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer" Smith stated: "I testified that I didn't offer him (Dwyer) the bribe, but in fact I did". Again, Smith stated "[if I offered Dwyer a $300000 contribution to his campaign] I felt surely he'd throw me out of the (Dwyer's) office...I went into Budd's office at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and I said 'Budd, I don't know how to tell you this but my client wants to make a $300000 contribution to you if he gets his contract'...and I said 'I'm sure you don't want to do this'...and Dwyer responded 'I don't know, why wouldn't I?, it sounds pretty good to me'. I was shocked when he said that".Stanzsd 05:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC) See EightyFourFilms, Honest Man: The Life of R.Budd Dwyer (Directors Cut).