Talk:Rodney Reed

Information offered for inclusion
The following was offered by another user, but the text was obscured by Wallyfromdilbert on the spurious ground that the user was a blocked proxy. I'm posting its content here, under my account, so that it may be read and fairly considered on its merits by the WP community.John2510 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Important information which could be included in this article

Here are some important source-based facts which could be included in this article:
 * A section on the murder of Stites and its subsequent investigation is necessary. These sources are useful.
 * Information on the murder of Mary Ann Arldt by David Alan Lawhon is necessary. Reed's defence at one point identified Lawhon as the killer. These sources are helpful.
 * Reed became a suspect of the Stites murder after Linda Schlueter identified him as the man who raped her. Intersting information disclosed by CNN include:
 * In a statement to CNN, Schlueter said: "Rodney Reed is not innocent at all and all these people that think he's innocent, I'm so sorry, they're so blinded."
 * In total, Reed had been implicated in six other sexual assaults, one in which he was charged but acquitted.


 * Rodney Reed was charged in the Stites murder on April 4, 1997 This article contains many interesting information, including:
 * Reed was already incarcerated in the Bastrop County Jail on a cocaine charge when charged with the Stites murder.
 * Reed's semen was already on file after his girlfriend (Caroline Rivas) in 1995 accused him of rape. Prosecution was dropped after the victim refused to cooperate with police. The rape kit of Reed's girlfriend was found to be a match with the rape kit of Stites.
 * The police had by the time of Reed's arrest investigated the case for almost a year, questioned hundreds of acquaintances of Stites and investigated hundreds of leads. Stites' former employer offered $50,000 to anyone who could give a lead leading to the solving of the case. None of the hundreds of residents questioned by police had told them of any relationship between Reed and Stites.


 * Rodney Reed was indicted in the Stites murder on May 21, 1997, "charged with two counts of capital murder, one for murder in the course of aggravated sexual assault and one for murder in the course of kidnapping"
 * Jury selection for the Reed trial begins
 * Information on the trial of Rodney Read    Interesting information revealed during the coverage of the trial include:
 * Reed's defense Lydia Clay-Jackson claimed there had been a secret relationship between Reed and Stites.
 * Reed was tried by a "mostly-white jury" with "no blacks".
 * Reed's defense suggested that Stites' fiance Jimmy Fennell was the real killer, and that the police had covered for him by not searching him home.
 * Reed's defense simultaneously claimed that David Lawhon had confessed to killing Stites.
 * Reed's mother and sister testified in the trial that they knew nothing of any relationship between Reed and Stites. Stites' mother added that Fennell and Stites were a happy couple who were deeply in love.
 * Jimmy Fennell was an initial suspect in the killing of Stites. He was rigorously questioned by police during the investigation and subjected to a DNA test. He was eventually cleared and testified about his ordeal during the trial of Reed.
 * Ranger Sgt. Rocky Wardlow and other officers of the law testified during the trial that they had interviewed hundreds of residents and no-one had informed them about a supposed relationship between Reed and Stites.
 * It was revealed that when Reed was initially questioned about the Stites murder, he had made the following statement: "I don't know Stacey Stites - never seen her other than what was on the news. The only thing that I do know is what was said on the news is that she was murdered."
 * Travis County Medical Examiner Robert Bayardo testified that he belived Stites had sex shortly before she was killed and had been sodomized after she was strangled.
 * During the trial, Reed's defense provided no witnesses to the alleged affair between Reed and Stites.
 * Jimmy Fennell failed a polygraph test during which he was asked whether he had strangled Stites, but this information was deemed inadmissible testimony because the U.S. Supreme Court considers polygraphs unreliable.
 * Jose Coronado claimed to have been a co-worker with David Lawhon at Wal-Mart, and that Stites had told him Lawhon and Stites were dating.
 * An unnamed defense witness claimed David Lawhon had confessed to him the murder of Stites.
 * David Lawhon refused to testify in the Reed trial.
 * Friends of Stites and Lawhon's ex-wife testified that knew had never heard of any relationship between Stites and Lawhon.
 * Reed's defense claimed Fennell was a friend of one of the police officers involved in the investigation. This officer later commited suicide.


 * Rodney Reed was convicted on May 18, 1998. Relevant information mentioned include:
 * Reed was convicted after a jury deliberation of six hours.
 * Stites' family and friends were relieved by the conviction.
 * Stites' brother commited suicide shortly after her murder. Stites' mother stated that "because of what he did to my daughter, my son took his life".
 * Upon conviction, Stites' sister Debra Rangel stated: "It feels good that justice was served and the system works. But our hearts go out to Reed's family. They obviously love him".
 * Reed's family wept, convinced that Reed was innocent.
 * According to the prosecuting attorney, no evidence whatsoever was presented at trial verifying a relationship between Reed and Stites.


 * Rodney Reed was sentenced to capital punishment on May 28, 1998. Important information mentioned here include:
 * Reed was sentence to death after a jury deliberation of four hours.
 * Upon the sentencing of Reed, prosecuting attorney Charles Penick stated: "We removed a very dangerous criminal from the streets of Bastrop County and of Texas... Reed is a predator and a rapist and just a horrible person.. The evidence was overwhelming. There was no doubt he would be a threat to society in the future... This is one of the most dangerous people I've been confronted with."


 * To this day, Stites' sisters Debra Oliver and Crystal Hefley maintain that there was no relationship between Reed and Stites, that Fennell is innocent, and that Reed should be executed.

__________________________________________________

WP:BLPCRIME violations on Jimmy Fennell

The current content about Jimmy Fennell in this article is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Fennell is not covered by WP:PUBLICFIGURE, yet this article includes claims of Fennell's complicity in a crime for he was not convicted. Multiple allegations of rape against Reed has been completely erased from this article, with WP:BLPCRIME used as justification. This article should either contain criminal allegations against both men, or remove such allegations altogether. Anything else would be hypocracy.

_____________________________________________________

Rodney Reed is a public figure and relevant criminal "allegations" against him should therefore be mentioned in this article

In America a limited purpose public figure has been defined as someone who "[has] thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved". The Rodney Reed case has recently been subjected to intense media attention, and his case has aroused the interest of millions of people, including celebrities like Kim Kardashian, Beyoncé and Rihanna, politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and even the Ambassador of the European Union to the United States (Stavros Lambrinidis). Reed has thrust himself to the forefront of this controversy by appearing in the media on numerous occasions, such as Dr. Phil. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states that for public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

It was Reed's attempted rape of Linda Schlueter which made him a suspect in this case. It was evidence collected from his previous rapes of Caroline Rivas which ensured that he was charged in this case. His previous rapes of Lucy Eipper, Anglea Weiss and Vivian Harbottle played a significant role in ensuring that Reed received capital punishment. His alleged rape of Connie York also figured prominently during his trial, in which four of his previous victims testified.

Previous rapes committed by Reed are highly relevant to his notability. They are well documented by reliable sources such as CNN and KVUE (NBC). Mentioning them here according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE is therefore appropriate. Concealing this essential information and thereby obfuscating the history of the case is not helpful to Wikipedia.

Although Reed is clearly a public figure, WP:BLPCRIME has earlier been invoked as justification to remove any reference here to earlier rapes by Reed. Note that this policy does not forbid the mentioning of allegations, but rather says that "editors must seriously consider" whether such information should be mentioned or not. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE applies for such consideration. It states that we must "include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Rodney Reed is notable for having been sentenced to capital punishment for the murder of Stacey Stites, and previous allegations of rape against him were instrumental in ensuring that he received this sentence. These allegations are well documented in high-quality secondary sources.

As shown above, Wikipedia policies do not justify the removal of information about Reed's criminal past. These omissions are a disgrace to Wikipedia, and they're being noticed with glee by Wikipedia's critics.

John2510 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * These issues have been discussed and they are WP:BLPCRIME violations. See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, which states "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability". Reed's current case, which is the only reason he is barely notable, is covered in the article, and other accusations should not be included. Wikipedia's content regarding living persons is held to a high standard, and BLPCRIME is meant to hold accusations of criminal conduct to an even higher bar for inclusion. Just because someone has been convicted of another crime is not an exemption to BLPCRIME. The additional information does not provide any meaningful details other than to suggest further guilt based on past accusations, which is the point of BLPCRIME when someone is relatively unknown such as Reed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Rodney Reed is a public figure being referenced to by multiple celebrities. His past history cannot be hid because that results in a violation of WP:NPOV and gives undue weight to his claims which are being pushed by multiple celebrities and not that of his victims. CaptainPrimo (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rodney Reed is a public figure because he has been convicted of rape and murder. Any history of him facing similar charges is completely relevant to what he's known for. Ted Bundy and other serial offenders don't get privacy for their crimes which they have not been convicted of. Its all mentioned in their articles. I don't see how Rodney Reed should get a privilege not due to other serial offenders. Further, his crimes are being documented by the U. S. Supreme Court. What non-public figures get that benefit? If you continue to insist he's not a public figure, you can AFD this article. Otherwise all relevant information should stay unless you want to censor his crimes. CaptainPrimo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These prior charges also came into play when he was being sentenced being referenced to by the prosecutor in securing the death penalty. So there's a direct link to what he's known for and these crimes. Its purely censorship to remove them. CaptainPrimo (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Being notable and being a public figure are two separate issues, which is stated directly in WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Some minor press coverage is not adequate to make an individual into a public figure. Reed is not comparable to Ted Bundy. Also, using primary sources and presenting allegations as fact is entirely inappropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can grandstand all you want about him not being a public figure. These facts you are trying to hide are directly related to what his press coverage and notability is. 15:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainPrimo (talk • contribs)


 * The basis of him getting the death penalty was these allegations. You can't claim that now he should have privacy when he's taking his case to the public. And there's plenty of lesser known serial offenders whose crimes for which they were not convicted for are displayed on their pages. CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual This guide is especially helpful and indicates that Reed is indeed a public figure. High profile is what Wikipedia needs one to qualify to being a public figure. That entails:

"High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional." Reed appeared willingly on Doctor Phil and has given many other public interviews. Reed doesn't have to be a household name. He has promoted himself willfully and is thus a public figure. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that is an explanatory supplement, and not policy. Also, you seemed to have ignored the second half: as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Which one of those would apply to Reed? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Public face. If he was released he would claim to be an expert on wrongful imprisonment. You have not presented any arguments to counter everything I've said. Instead you are engaged in edit warring. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I literally responded to you using the explanatory supplement you cited that contradicts your argument. Under your interpretation, any person who is notable enough for a Wikipedia page would be a public figure, when the policy directly says that is not true. The content you keep restoring is also clearly not supported and primary sources are not appropriate to use, as already determined by BLPN. Please stop now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please stop protecting a serial rapist. Do you not have any morals? Your pedantry is covering up for someone who has assaulted multiple women. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I contradicted your contradiction btw. Still, I don't see any way to reach an agreement with you. I want other users to express their POV. So far everyone but you on the talk page seems to be in support of adding this content. CaptainPrimo (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can check the archives for other conversations, and you can post to WP:BLPN or start an RfC if you would like additional input. Please also note that you stated about "if Reed was released". Is he actually promoting himself as a self-described expert or is that your conjecture about the future? Please also use proper indentation per WP:TPG. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, all this discussion seems to be a pointless waste of time at the moment. Even if Rodney Reed was as notable as Barack Obama or Rodney Reed, it would still be unacceptable to add material sources solely to court cases. My morals require me to obey wikipedia's BLP policy especially when it comes to articles, no matter who the living subject affected may be. There have been claims made on BLPN that the material is covered in secondary sources, I'm not saying it can definitely be added, but if any editor is so worried about Reed not being "protected", why don't they actually write a section that isn't such a basic violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY? This is not pedantry, but a basic requirement of writing BLPs, especially when writing about contentious issues as anything covered in court transcripts tends to be. Nil Einne (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Why was "Other sexual assault allegations" deleted?
Seemed fair. It was all sourced material. Not sure why such a large helpful chunk of the article was deleted. 2601:645:C000:AE10:45F1:29C8:1125:16AC (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Since there has been no explanation weeks later, I will add it back. 2601:645:C000:AE10:4C48:A150:9588:EC1B (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This content is already being discussed in the section above, as well as on the BLP noticeboard, as per the talk page header. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Blatant liberal censorship. The celebrity endorsements did this, not an abstract interpretation of wikipedia's rules. If you were being impartial you would delete the section on celebrity endorsements as well but we all know you won't do that despite the same logic applying of how it violated BLP 2601:645:C000:AE10:90B9:FFCF:146A:1664 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:AGF. How would celebrity endorsements violate WP:BLPCRIME? I see no criminal accusations in that section at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just strange why Wikipedia would support choosing to omit objective information. So forgive the WP:AGF discourtesy, but in a situation where the two choices are A) Have information about a person relevant to their ongoing case and B) Not have that information, I figured an encyclopedia would have gone with A. Has an admin reviewed this decision? 2601:645:C000:AE10:54D1:3927:CCB5:791C (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has certain policies that govern how it operates, but those are based on community consensus, not any administrative authority. As per WP:BLP, Wikipedia generally has higher standards for content about living people. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Who dictates what the community census is, then? Surely somebody. Or was there a vote I am not aware of? Seems like others have made the same point I have in this talk page only for them to be silenced with the WP:BLP excuse as reason enough. I am just unclear on how you know the community agreed to not include that information rather than some final authority saying "No it's not allowed" which was what my impression has been thus far. 2601:645:C000:AE10:8D10:5733:87B0:F957 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus is discussion-based rather than a vote as per WP:CONSENSUS. However, consensus on individual articles cannot override certain community policies, such as BLP. If you look through the talkpage here, you will see that there are previous discussions about this topic, as well as archived discussion and an ongoing discussion at a noticeboard. – wallyfromdilbert (talk)
 * Oh okay I'm sorry I was just confused because you seemed to have contradicted what you said earlier. So then I ask my question again, has an admin reviewed the interpretation of the WP:BLP rule on this page? Because I disagree with it and it seems many other users have as well. 2601:645:C000:AE10:11DD:D2E3:D836:2174 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Admins do not review any interpretations of policy. That's simply not how things work. Also, there is nothing to review anyway. No one has really offered any explanation as to how the usage of court transcripts as the sole source for that material is justified under BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, let me ask another question then. What kind of source(s) would I need to use to illustrate that the person in question has a long history of sexual assault/rape charges? Simply put, I think that's an essential piece of information and omitting that could be misleading 2601:645:C000:AE10:F42E:2A36:FD6E:F0EB (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The addition was completely unacceptable per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The only source was court records which cannot be used like that for BLPs. Any editor who adds such BLP violations again may be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No argument about the section sourced only to primary sources being removed. But I am somewhat perplexed by the absence of any mention around his first arrest and the 1987 Wichita Falls case. It's not just well-covered in secondary sources (including the very second source used in this article to source the information about Reed's early life), but the sources explicitly link that earlier case to decisions that were made in the 1996 case. I'm having difficulty seeing how that can be argued as a BLP violation. Grandpallama (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this is at BLPN, so maybe I'll put my thoughts there, but I see others have already made what would be my core point (that the 1987 case, at least, should be included as a component of the 1996 case, and that it is covered by numerous secondary sources). Unclear as to why people keep wanting to rely on primary sourcing for this. Grandpallama (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Including information about a previous charge that is connected to his conviction by multiple secondary sources would probably be appropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mr. IP and Grandpallama. What kind of source is required to mention his long history of sexual assault charges? Do we need an article about the court records? Court records alone don't suffice, has to have a journalist talk about it first? The only issue I see here is that people will come here and become misinformed by supporting someone without knowing about their history first (in which case they would be more informed, could change their decision) Test123Bug (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added a valid source that explains why he is being charged for capital punishment, which is his criminal history in assaulting women. Hope that's appropriate. if not, tell me why please and what sort of source is required to illustrate his prior charges. Test123Bug (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rodney Reed is human garbage he raped other women besides the one he murdered, and he stalked and raped a 12 year old girl, the information about his other rapes should be included in the article. 100.34.234.175 (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Why does the "appeals" section need expanding?
Seems like it covered pretty much everything. What should be added there? Or can it just be removed? Test123Bug (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, might be a good time to protect this article from IP edits... Test123Bug (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Some sources covering defense contentions
Today there was discussion of this case on TV, locally (non-US), and when I looked for info out of interest, I thought that the coverage on WP lacked some detail. I understand there are all sorts of considerations around sourcing and undue weight, and also possibly around naming collateral individuals. It is important to tread with great care, I know. In this light, I am parking some sources that I found here on Talk. Hoping this is okay to stay while thinking about - IF and HOW - to incorporate some more detail - with consensus, as always, of course. Would not do anything precipitately. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) About the release of Stacey Stiles' fiance after 10 year prison sentence.
 * 2) "...while the petition for a review of his case was denied," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her decision. "'There is no escaping the pall of uncertainty over Reed's conviction,'"
 * 3) "...former Sheriff’s Deputy, [named], who attended Stites’ funeral. During the funeral, [he] said that [Stites' finance] allegedly looked at Stites’ body and said “you got what you deserved.” and "... an officer with the Bastrop County police and a friend of both [fiance] and Stites, said that before her murder, [he, fiance] had told him that he believed Stites was having an affair with a black man." Lawyer of Stites' fiance, "Phillips, however, says that his client is innocent and that these new claims from witnesses are “utterly laughable.” [...] He questions why people are deciding to come forward now."
 * 4) Summary of defense assertions, incl. alleged "jailhouse confession" by Stites' fiance, and withdrawal / recanting of some medical / forensic expert evidence.