User talk:Ammonitefossils

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. --  momoricks   talk  01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wuornos

 * I did not make these edits to the article. I saw changes to the information by several editors within a short period of time, which appeared to be the beginning of an edit war/content dispute. I posted the note on the talk page to provide some clarification regarding Wikipedia's policies.


 * On a different note, thank you for clarifying your edit to the Dumb blonde article. I made several mistakes like that when I first started editing, and I apologize for misinterpreting it as malicious. One thing that has helped me avoid accidental edits is checking the box marked "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in editing preferences. --  momoricks   talk  08:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That part I corrected was stating false information about Mallory's conviction. It was not a "violent rape" yet you left it on there unchallenged for a long time. There was no "10 year sentence" either which I also corrected. You also neglected to mention that he was convicted at a very young age and had never been convicted of a similar crime in the 30 years since (the Justices cited this as one of the reasons why this info would have been inadmissible). It seemed as though you were trying to make a case for justifiable homicide by including inaccurate information/ignoring information.

"When I read the Supreme Court case about Mallory, it was a bit more serious than sexual advances and running off at the first sign of resistance. That he was put in a maximum security facility and was required to have 4 years more treatment after release tells me it was dealt with as a rape, except it wasn't completed."

I have two sources that state otherwise. If you have the details (exact) of the offense (DIRECTLY from the Supreme Court), then why not state them instead of being vague? That extra four years may have had something to do with what appears to be a form of OCD which had previously compelled him to quit his job as a beverage delivery boy. According to my sources, it was an ongoing problem for him but not one suggestive of a sadistic rapist. Whatever the case, I've seen no evidence from any source that this was a violent attack. Besides, I highly doubt my sources would make lightly of Mallory's crime in such a way (by reducing an actual rape that just was not "completed" to what Vronsky described). The one I cited still gave some credence to her claim of defense (regarding Mallory). I'd hardly call that "apologetic".

"Did this mean Mallory deserved to be murdered? I dunno."

No he didn't deserve to be *murdered*. Duh.

"But to me, it seems to confirm what Wuornos said about him."

It confirms NO SUCH THING. The judge in the appeals case thought so too and rightfully exercised his power in excluding it. Furthermore, what she said about him varied considerably, giving conflicting accounts early on (contradicting what she said on the stand), something that Prosecutor Tanner hammered home to the jury in his arguments. Also, my sources state that no other prostitutes came forward with similar stories, despite his engagement in solicitation for DECADES. So what you have here is only ONE prostitute claiming a brutal rape by Mallory, the very one who murdered him. The same one that GUNNED DOWN SIX OTHER MEN in the virtually the same fashion, invoking the same motive (self-defense). A man with a meager history of crime versus a woman with a disturbing rap sheet, which included armed robbery, assault, accusations of domestic violence, robbing Johns at gunpoint, etc. The idea that she killed Mallory in an unprovoked attack is far more plausible based on the evidence, and that's why she's not walking this planet anymore.

"That fact is germane, whether or not the death was deserved. It certainly could be what pushed her over the edge."

She was long over the edge by the time she murdered Mallory in cold blood.

(edit = the "Dumb Blonde edit" I did was a mistake. I was going to add to that section but I deleted a part of it by accident apparently because my comp started acting up around the time of the edit (slowing down, right click function screwed up), and I didn't know how to correct it (i had already clicked on "save" before realizing what I had done). I'm not too familiar with the format yet. But now I understand what the undo option is for)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammonitefossils (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The source
...behind your dismissal of my source is apparently an appeal by Wuornos's defense team. Not exactly an objective source, wouldn't you say? In the appeal, there are no details regarding Mallory's actual crime but there appears to be a lot of defense spin. And here I thought you had credible information that disputed Peter Vronsky and Sue Russells description of Mallory's crime. You apparently based your opinion that it was "a bit more than sexual advances" on the details of his sentence. But his sentence was meager. Four years. And nothing about it makes Vronsky's description of his crime unlikely in my opinion. His "overall eight years of treatment" is likely due to his confession of having OCD-like sexual compulsions rather than the nature of the crime. So why delete my words? Only information from the Supreme Court is valid (in this case, an appeal by the defense)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammonitefossils (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)