Talk:Susan Polk

Untitled
This may be a silly question, but why does conviction come before trial in this article - it's usually the other way about. Struman

Because the Conviction DID come before the Trial in this case. Outrageous Miscarriage of Justice. IBreakAway (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this article is in serious need of validation.. it reads as if written by someone with an obvious bias against the subject. jimbomu

She's INNOCENT. IBreakAway (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with jimbomu that this article seems biased against Susan Polk, and has a conclusory, editorial tone, rather than a neutral, factual tone. For instance, it would be better to just give Susan's version of events, note that there was no corroboration for that version (if true), and add any specific jury comments on believing her or not.169.232.230.74 02:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Polk's "version of the events" and supporting testimony was suppressed by the Trial Judge & State DA. Once plans within the various communities involved were set into motion, it proved impossible to obtain representation that aligned with Polk's interests... IBreakAway (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to just jump in and start editing things - I frankly don't know that much about the case - but the thing about her returning to the home to collect some things and have her temporary crown fixed sounds like there is a dentist's chair in the living room. 2602:306:CF98:4830:E4BF:D6A0:EB1A:F67D (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)DF

Why cherry pick merely 1 of the misstatements of fact the State used against Polk? Why choose only 1 when there are so very many to choose from... IBreakAway (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have exonerating evidence I would like to post on this page but someone keeps deleting it...

BLP
With regards to this article, please ensure that additions are properly cited to reliable secondary sources in order to comply with the biographies of living persons policy. Material must also be written in a neutral tone. This article was brought to my attention by an editor concerned that it was not in compliance with the BLP policy, and I have requested additional assistance at the biographies of living persons noticeboard in ensuring that it maintains proper sourcing and tone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be a horrible tool when abused. I’ve tried to clear things up but have been having a hard time doing so.67.189.34.110 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eappwr (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blanking sourced material is not really the proper way to address concerns about it. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies regarding verifiability and neutrality, and these rules are particularly important when concerning biographies of living persons. If you wish to improve the article, you are welcome to do so, but please do not remove sourced material without consensus or add material without citing your reliable source. We cannot incorporate material that is not already published somewhere else; all opinions must be attributable. If you wish to discuss controversial alterations to articles, please discuss them first on the article's talk page. Remember to sign your notes with four tildes ( ~ ), which expands to your username and a time stamp, which is very helpful for editors who might respond. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How do I add the following link? http://www.courttv.com/trials/polk/docs/cooper.html?page=1 It is a letter written by Dr. John Cooper to Judge Brady. Dr. Cooper was my mothers forensic pathologist. He testified that there were only 5 significant stab wounds, none of which were necessarily life threatening. He testified that the wounds were defensive and that my father ultimately died of coronary heart failure.


 * Let me read through it and see what I can do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added what seems to be supported by that particular document and found a little bit more, a newspaper article that substantiates further what you say above. Given that you are closely connected with the individual, our conflict of interest guideline suggests that it is best for you not to edit the article directly yourself, but to propose changes on this talk page. I have been watchlisting this page (keeping an eye on it) since the WP:BLP concerns were first brought to my attention in January. We really want to keep the article neutral, to make sure it fairly covers what reliable published sources say. Please let us know if there are any other omissions or problems in the article. Since we strive for even-handed coverage, we may not be able to cover every detail of either prosecution or defense, but our goal here is to ensure that coverage is fair and even-handed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole entire article needs to be reviewed and set straight. One of the many issues with the improper handling of this case is that the misstatements of fact and absence of truth were set into motion well before Polk's 2nd Trial. In fact it all began much earlier so setting the record straight is more difficult when dealing with a slanted/lopsided record. I have an enormous amount of undisputed factual information relating to this case as well as Polk's ongoing Appeal. Said information totally debunks/exposes the mishandling and outrageous Prosecutorial/Judicial Misconduct that have infested Polk's case from the outset. The Trial (if you can actually call it one) that the County/State put on in Contra Costa County (yet another Superior Court "Regime" in California with a 100% conviction rate) was a horrendous example of how the Criminal Justice System works in a State as overboard as CA. IBreakAway (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Susan Polk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060811194637/http://www.pogash.com/magazine.html to http://www.pogash.com/magazine.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125112144/http://www.courttv.com/trials/polk/022307_sentencing_ctv.html to http://www.courttv.com/trials/polk/022307_sentencing_ctv.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712234703/http://www.courttv.com/trials/polk/docs/cooper.html?page=1 to http://www.courttv.com/trials/polk/docs/cooper.html?page=1

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) 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)