Talk:Sarah Jo Pender

2 April 2012
"At some point before the murders, Richard Hull, who couldn't legally purchase a firearm because of his record, sought to buy one from her boyfriend's son.[7]" This sentence is confusing and does not seem to make sense. Also, it says Hull was captured October 27, 2010. Wasn't he captured in 2000 along with Pender?

Lots of opinion in this article. Needs to be cleaned up big time.--1 April 2012 SN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.19.228 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

20 May 2013
Someone added a POV tag to this page on May 7th 2013 without making any attempt at justifying the reason why.

The « dispute » would refer to the one and only comment made on the talk page since the page was created in December 2008. This comment, made in April 2012, has more to do with a a small mistake that anybody could correct. Its author didn't find it necessary to flag the page at the time. This is hardly a dispute.

All information on the page are clearly sourced. Where there is controversy about the Pender case, the controversy is clearly identified as such and thus, no attempt is made to mislead the readers.

Because no valid arguments are given to justify a POV tag, this clearly appears to be an attempt to discredit the page. It comes right around the same time other acts of vandalism were made on the page, on April 27th 2013 and May 19th 2013. I am therefore removing the POV tag until someone can make a solid, rational argument for its presence. Brunogh (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

3 february 2014
I deleted the february 2, 2014 modification of this page according to which Andrew Cataldi stole Sarah Jo Pender's tuition money. Its author refered to an erronous version of the Pender Case spread around by the movie She Made Them Do It while still using the reference for the deleted text. This was giving the readers and giving them a false sense of accuracy. This person obviously didn't even bother to fully read the page as it is stated under "crime" that Sarah worked as a secretary at Carl E. Most and Sons. Sarah Jo Pender wasn't going to college when the murders occured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunogh (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

22 february 2014
Removed link placed by author 24.63.77.213. As this person never made any contribution to this page this is textbook spam. Furthermore, the link leads to a facebook fan page which often relies on cut and pastes rather than bring first source information or link to it by "sharing status".Brunogh (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

19 April 2014
Came upon this page while reading about various prison escapes and was struck by the serious bias present. Placed a POV tag. There are numerous references to "controversies" about the case, yet the only source cited is some google site called Fair Justice for Sarah Pender for which the tagline is "I'm a good person, I just wish you could see that." Examples include a sub-section under "Appeals" which was called something like "2014 controversy over denial of new trial" until I removed the heading - where it still says: ''Controversy arose when information surfaced that one of the judge sitting on the reviewing panel was Cale J. Bradford. Bradford had been judge during both of Richard Hull's 2003 and 2005 appeals,[7][53] raising questions about the court's impartiality in reviewing the request.[54]'' The only source supporting this statement is once again an opinion piece on Sarah Pender's amateur website. Same thing here: ''"A book on her escape, Girl, Wanted: The Chase for Sarah Pender,[60] was released June 7, 2011. The book, written by Steve Miller, has been criticized as inaccurate and deliberately quoting key documents in a misleading way.[61" ''

The entire page is written like an essay, with opinions thrown in and no effort even made to cite valid sources for them. Things like "Supporters of Sarah Pender claim that if anything, far from being manipulative, Sarah Pender has often been used by a variety of people as a convenient scapegoat to elude their own responsibilities in crimes or errors they committed." The "controversies" section is twice as long as the description of the case itself, and there seems to be a counter-argument thrown in for any facts that pertain to Pender's guilt. This article has apparently been this way for 2 years, perhaps because it doesn't get enough traffic. User:Brunogh is clearly monitoring the page and does not appear to be neutral enough to edit it. I suggest someone come in and help clean this page up so it can meet Wikipedia's standards. Brunogh removed the POV tag 2 years ago saying "I am therefore removing the POV tag until someone can make a solid, rational argument for its presence." Well, here you go. Wikipedia is for facts and information, not opinions and innuendo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitikiki (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fallacy about the perjury finding (around notes 25/26)
The article seems to imply that the convicted shooter was found by his parole reviewers to have committed perjury in submitting the letter used against his co-defendant. But it looks like they in fact accused him of perjury when he subsequenty swore in an affidavit on her behalf that the original letter was a forgery?

Sorry if this is incoherent, on an smartphone, can't quote easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.149.151 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

21 April 2015 - Fallacy ?
I checked the May 4, 2014 wikipedia version of the Sarah Jo Pender article, available prior to the above comment about a "fallacy". This is what the text was : "On May 4, 2004, when he appeared for re-sentencing, the court found as an aggravating factor the notarized affidavit in which he admitted the forgery, since it contradicted his earlier testimonies". The text is quite clear about what motivated the court decision : ''"the court found as an aggravating factor the notarized affidavit."  Nowhere is it implied, as you write, that the court found Richard Hull "to have committed perjury in submitting the letter used against his co-defendant"'' Furthermore, the court document is quoted and referenced while you provide no quote whatsoever to support your claim beside that you're using a smatphone. Now that's an argument ! Please learn to pay attention to what you read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunogh (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarah Jo Pender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sIg1_w8rvQYJ:www.wishtv.com/news/local/pender-asks-for-new-trial-due-to-new-evidence+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk with https://web.archive.org/web/20131203165233/http://www.wishtv.com/news/local/pender-asks-for-new-trial-due-to-new-evidence on http://www.wishtv.com/news/local/pender-asks-for-new-trial-due-to-new-evidence

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggest removing external links
None of the external links work and have no information for readers. 2604:CA00:13B:8BD7:0:0:260:49F2 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)