Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jamie Peterson

This case is taken out of the run-of-the-mill category by virtue of its false confession claim, substantiated by expert forensic psychologist opinion.. This fact is accompanied by Peterson’s 100% exclusion from the DNA profile which was entered as evidence in the case. Add the fact that the employment of up to 15 police detectives produced no objective physical evidence implicating Peterson.

Steps are in process to post the transcripts of the trial online in digital form, including transcripts of the actual confessions. This will permit pro and con evaluation, using the original source. As always in criminal trials there are two sides, and it is appropriate for this article to anticipate pro/con debate.

As recently as July 30, 2012 the Michigan Supreme Court recognized the validity of use of expert psychological opinion testimony to aid the jury in evaluating false confession claims, in People v Jerome Walter Kowalski, Docket No. 141932, saying “ in some instances. . . without the enlightenment of expert opinion the jury's ultimate determination may not be arrived at intelligently.”

This topic is of current public interest, due to the large number of wrongfully convicted prisoners that have been exonerated in recent years. In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

This article should be linked to the following Wikipedia articles: “National Registry of Exonerations” and “False Confessions.” Big Al 300 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved your comment to the deletion discussion. If you want the comment to be effective - you need to show newspaper articles, and that kind of thing about this case.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Delete". DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)" When can I re-submit this article? TinyWing (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TinyWing