Talk:Murder of Jessie Davis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
project-independent quality rating
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Baby Chloe

This article previously listed both Blake and Chloe as children of Jessie in the template box. Why was mention of Chloe removed? (JosephASpadaro 16:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I added both children. I do not understand why Chloe was removed. That was the name Jessie Davis was going to give the unborn child. If you look at the
Laci Peterson
article, her unborn child that was also murdered by Scott Peterson, was added to her list of children.

Sources

While writing the article, please source the items with the reference list. Here is an example of what NOT to do. Example: According to MSNBC, this happened then.

Also, please stop removing my "hang on" template becasue this will save it from being deleted in the meantime.

Jordanrschroeder 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

No, it won't. The hangon tag is used only with the "speedy deletion" tag - and this tag has not been applied to this article. The AfD tag, however, has been applied, and that process takes about five days. As a result, you don't have to worry about "saving" the article and you can focus on defending it in the AfD discussion (follow the links in the AfD tag box). Rklawton 18:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, the speedy deletion tag was posted on the article. I don't see why this isn't important? This is nearly the same as the Laci Peterson case. Okay then.
Jordanrschroeder 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Good candidate for AFD

Yes, this is like the Laci Peterson case, and is a newsworthy story. No, this is not an encyclopedic article, since per

WP:BLP not everything in the newspapers needs to become an encyclopedia article. Tbe "BLP" consideration here would be for the recently dead and for the surviving infant child of the deceased. Edison 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed move

I'd propose moving this article to "Disappearance and murder of Jesse Davis" because the article is about her disappearance and murder, not a full biography. The disappearance of a full-term pregnant woman and massive search effort is what made this story become noteworthy. Even if Jessie Davis had been found alive and well the saga would have merited a Wikipedia entry for the disappearance and well-publicized manhunt organized by her family. Discovery of her dead body only added a grisly end to the situation and made the ending sad instead of triumphant.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myisha Ferrell

The article states: "Myisha Ferrell, a classmate of Cutts, was charged as an accessory." I don't believe that that is true. I believe that she was charged with obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice means that she essentially hindered the police investigation of the crime committed. Accessory means that she assisted in the crime itself. Two very different things -- no? (JosephASpadaro 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There is such a thing as being an accessory "after the fact." Helping someone dispose of a body would probably constitute being an accessory after the fact.71.63.119.49 06:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I don't understand how we have arrived at this resolution. We took two non-notable biographies under consideration for deletion with divided but developing consensus to delete and ended up with one article about the same content not under any consideration for deletion. This feels strongly like WP:SHOPPING to me, and I'm not sure that the handling of these matters has been above board, from the bold merging of articles in AfD to the closing of those AfD debates as "withdrawn" by an admin who started them without a procedural re-listing of this article. Am I missing something? Erechtheus 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the biographies of living persons warning atop this talk page seems to stress once again that we're really dealing with biographical material in this article. Beyond that, the lack of articles on "Disappearance and murder of Chandra Levy" or "Disappearance and murder of Laci Peterson" strongly suggests that this is indeed an attempt at sidestepping these serious biography issues in what I would conclude is a violation of the spirit of even having biographical notability guidelines. Erechtheus 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree with having this page, but it's far better than having multiple pages about the event. Recall the fun that was had with the biographies related to the
2006 Duke University lacrosse case article. --- RockMFR 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree ... this all seemed rather shifty and suspicious to me, also. (However, I do not agree that a consensus for deletion was developing.) What I got out of this was: if the article is a biography of Jessie Davis, then she is not notable (and the article was proposed for deletion). But if the article is about the incident (disappearance/murder), then that incident is indeed notable (and the proposed deletion was withdrawn). That's what I got out of this whole thing. (JosephASpadaro 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
What sort of sense does that possibly make, though? It smacks of policy shopping to me. It's not like the sources for either of the combined articles were really different from the sources for this combined article -- they're all covering one event. It may be better to have one non-notable article than what might eventually be 3 (one for victim, one for alleged murderer, and one for alleged obstructor), but the threshold notability issue seems to be the same to me. Erechtheus 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concern was that the article attempted to produce a biography of an individual about whom a neutral balanced biography was impossible because she is notable for only a single event. Our standard practice is to change such articles into articles about the event. If you feel the event is not notable and should not be the subject of an article, no one is stopping you from listing it for deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What good would that do when we have this talk page as a resource to try to reach a consensus outside of that process? We got here because of a rush to create biographies and a rush to sidestep the deletion process the first time it was started. Isn't the spirit of the project to try to arrive at consensus and only resort to procedure when that's not possible? Erechtheus 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe the event is notable or not? If not, you can ask for more evidence or list it for deletion. If so, there isn't really anything to worry about, this is just another example of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, writing about the event that gets coverage instead of misleading subdivisions into redundant pseudobiographies. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not believe this event is notable at present, due to the lack of sustained interest. I'm not convinced that this will be any more important than any other murder that has taken place when we look back on the event from a suitable period of time. Notability is not temporary, as we have previously discussed. If seven references, working from the same body of material about the same single event, yields what is now considered a notable event, get ready for articles about every crime more serious than grand larceny or possession of a drug. Just to give an example, Christopher Scott Emmett was convicted of capital murder and has come within hours of execution. I know I have read at least seven articles with different sources about the murder he committed and its subsequent procedure. Should he have an article? I'm not about to start one because I believe the answer is no and I strongly believe in not starting an article in violation of
WP:POINT. Erechtheus 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see any reason why Emmett's case shouldn't have an article. We're
not paper, so there's no limit on how many articles we can have, there are numerous sources documenting the case, and capital murder is surely something that people are going to be curious about. As for lack of sustained interest in this case, it's received sustained national attention, both local papers have special sections on the case, etc. How much more coverage could this possibly have? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This project isn't paper, but there must be standards in the name of not depleting the monetary resources of the project and keeping the scope of the project to what is sustainable by the level of interest in it. If there were no limits, we would have no reason to delete anything for any reason, even up to and including the gibberish some people create articles about. While I'm not trying to slide us down the slippery slope, the response on the other side has to be more than just "not paper". As to people being curious about capital murder or murder in general, I submit the question is whether either the Emmett case or the Davis case feature anything special enough to merit inclusion in the articles on those subjects already in existance. That's the first place I'd expect to see anything truly important about either case. Erechtheus 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are standards, that's what the content policies are. It's a straw man to bring in 'gibberish.' The issue is why should we not have an article that complies with all policies. We're supposed to be the 'sum of human knowledge.' Why exclude this case from that sum? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd notability fetish going on here. Taking a step back and thinking about what the point of wikipedia is leads me to vote for keeping it. Namely, to be an aggregator of reliable information. I came to the story late, so I looked her up in Wiki looking for a good overview of everything involved in the case. On the whole, wiki delivered. Thanks to modern technology if you insist on continuing to debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin you could just count them. viz, notability presumably has something to do with being noted, if they are not one in the same then perhaps the latter is a good leading indicator of the former, thus I think a look at the traffic records of this page would help decide whether there are enough people like myself, looking to be informed to make keeping it worthwhile. -q in chicago

Seperation and Timeline....

I think now that things have settled down a bit, Perhaps a timeline would be nice as well as the top of the article should be cleaned up a bit and talk about what she initially did for a living and touching on her previous relationship with her alleged murderer. --Hourick 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you'd have problems with
    Talk 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

BLP

This seems like a rediculous question, but why was there a

WP:BLP logo on the top, she is not a living person. Rodrigue 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

So what, I'm sure plenty of living people are related or tied to dead people who have articles.But they don't have articles of their own,hence they don't have biographies, so they don't fall into that policy. Rodrigue 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that policy applies to all statements about living people, not just statements made in a biography about them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All statements about living people? Then that pretty much applies to every article on wikipedia, obviously there all related to people, and will talk about them.That wouldn't be a very selective policy, so there shouldn't even be a notice if it applies everywhere. Rodrigue 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally added the tag because I had a pretty good feeling that people might add stuff like "Mr. XYZ murdered her blah blah blah". I don't really care about the tag being there. Tags mean shit, and most people probably don't read them anyways. --- RockMFR 18:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I don't understand how missing person's cases such as this ever get such wide coverage.The only reason its notable now is because of the media coverage, but it would otherwise be a simple missing person's case like any other.What made this story so important, and why the massive search?.Perhaps its just because she was pregnant, or it was highlighted by her being from a small town, but still seems weak for national news. Rodrigue 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See
    Missing White Woman Syndrome I guess... the media report on stories that get good ratings. --W.marsh 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I also think the fact the murderer was a cop had something to do with it... Angelicerin17 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby

What is the latest with the baby and the umbilical chord still attached.Muntuwandi 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the abandoned baby that was left on a nurse's door step, DNA tests on that baby girl confirmed that that baby was not Jessie Davis' baby. Furthermore, the mother who abandoned that baby girl has come forward to authorities. And, furthermore, the autopsy on Jessie Davis included the fact that the unborn fetus was still in Jessie's womb. (JosephASpadaro 23:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Move

Please discuss before any further moves, because the article is under the current title, not simply Jessie Davis, for a good reason. It's an article about the event, not a biography of the person. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Your Saying

- NightGyrl....Here's a question: What For? Their is no purpose for it being this long statement. The Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis is too long. What about doing Natalee Holloway, Elizabeth Smart, Jennifer Wilbanks and every other female who has an article. So your saying (for example): "Disappearance and Recovery of Elizabeth Smart"? Right? LILVOKA 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If our articles were limited entirely to a single event, they should be titled to reflect that. I'd have no problem moving

Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

On a related note, I've moved James R. Jordan, Sr. to

Murder of James R. Jordan, Sr. - since that article is short and consists only of details about the murder. Rklawton 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Biased

If the subject of this article really is an example of Missing white woman syndrome, then I don't see why it should even be covered.thousands of people go missing everyday in America, and so to have an article of the one person who gets wide media coverage seems very biased, as its already very biased that the person has media coverage when there is nothing different about this specific event. Rodrigue 17:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to systemic bias is to add information about undercovered events, not remove this information. You can wikigroan all you want, but the solution is to make better articles. Third-world politicians? Counter-cultural leaders? Disasters and wars that killed thousands of brown people? Articles on all are welcome, and the existence of an article about a pokemon or murdered white chick doesn't prevent you from writing them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not exactly true.If an article were written about a random person who went missing, it would be deleted for not being notable, and in fact it wouldn't be because it happens all the time.But anyone can see that why focus is given on one specific missing person is odd, when there's nothing special about the event.If the notability rests solely in the event now being well known, thats disproportionate to the lesser-known similiar ones, but since one can not write an article on every similiar lesser-known event, then the solution is the other way around. Rodrigue 17:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutts' and Davis' are not standard English

People revert my corrections, but all major manuals of grammar usage/style suggest adding an additional s to possessive, singular nouns ending in s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs) 02:01, June 28, 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I also prefer to use the "apostrophe s", which is (as you wrote) recommended by most style manuals. When I started editing this article, I used Davis's and Cutts's, but other editors "corrected" it. Since all the news sources seem to use Davis' and Cutts' without the "s" at the end, I gave up. It's better that the article use one format throughout than switch between the two depending on which editor wrote any given sentence. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bare apostrophe has wide usage. Frankly, it's less messy looking and is unambiguous.--Ace Telephone 18:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. I wouldn't say it has "wide usage". It has wide usage in certain media outlets, but nowhere else. It is also not "unambiguous", quite the contrary.68.187.117.71 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Associated Press style, which most U.S. newspapers use, does not require the addition of another "s" to possessive, singular nouns ending in s. Most (if not all) other styles add the second apostrophe, with a few exceptions. Hence, the media write, "Cutts'," and everyone else writes "Cutts's." Is there a preferred style for Wikipedia? (I would guess it's probably not the Associated Press style and that "Cutts's" and "Davis's" would be appropriate.)

Ritterek (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Ritterek[reply]

media riot

I've started working on the media response to the story. This will become a separate section, and maybe even a separate article, in that there is enough info on Davis to warrant a basic, short bio, with the progressing details vis-a-vis

Bobby Cutts, Jr. better on his own 'perp page'. --Ace Telephone 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Media reaction section needs to be cleaned up and who said what needs to be more plainly stated. reported said, "comment". The current wording doesn't specify who said what, or what was a direct quote. If it isn't properly formatted, I suggest that that section be heavily edited. --Hourick 14:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JESSIEMARIE.jpg

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against any splitting of this article

I'm firmly against the idea of splitting this article into multiple articles about individual people. The best way to present this topic is in a single article, not split up into multiple "biographies". --- RockMFR 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


what the hell is with the bogus "media attention" section

This is the most BS I've ever read. Other cases like it don't get media attention? UHHHH laci peterson?? This whole section is some racist persons attempt to throw the race card into a tragedy and should be dealt with severe editorial jurisprudence.68.187.117.71 11:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Section found below. I modved it, though little of it seems required in the article and even less of it is worth salvaging at all.[reply]

Media attention

The case attracted an extraordinary amount of

media of the United States. According to one report, "at one point sixteen television satellite trucks shut down parts of downtown Canton."[1] This media response
became a news story in and of itself.

There were questions of why this case in particular so riveted the press, while other similar cases are usually completely ignored, with pointed references to racial factors. In railing against a

Chicago Sun-Times
wrote:

One news anchor threw journalistic ethics out the window and reported that the station couldn't substantiate "the rumor" that Cutts had "confessed" to the crime and had "led" police to the Davis. How does one dispel a rumor by repeating it?

The same anchor disputed that race was involved in this story, and faked disbelief when she reported that before Cutts' arrest, an NAACP official in Canton had pleaded that the man be given a fair trial.

Cutts is a black man who is accused of killing his pregnant white girlfriend and unborn baby. Of course race is involved.[2]

The America's Most Wanted website gave its sensational imprimatur by captioning Cutts' mug shot with "captured".[3]

As for Myisha Ferrell, an example of ignoring the

John Gibson
, who doled out this in his "Friday Finals: Week's Winners and Losers":

Myisha Ferrell. Man, when she got that call from Bobby Cutts asking her to help him clean up a mess she should have hung up. Instead she lent him a hand and now she's in the can.[4]

That's in no way presuming guilt, have you watched any legal round-tables? They say this all day-DMCer (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within the blogosphere, there have been comparisons to the near-contemporaneous news story of Chris Benoit and the relatively sympathetic treatment he has received versus the near-demonization of Cutts.[5]

The friends and family of Cutts have also commented on the extreme glare of publicity brought to the case:

During the week she [Davis] was missing, national media pored over the story. Though officials never called him a suspect before his arrest, Cutts was pegged by many from the start. The arrest merely sealed his guilt in their eyes.

[...] It's not only the assumption of guilt that troubles them. They worry about how the pending trial could impact race relations in Stark County. Several are angry about a flier distributed last week warning white women that relationships with black men could cost them their lives. Davis was white and Cutts is black.

To many, the fact that it was an interracial relationship means nothing.

But the fliers make it clear others are injecting race into the discussion, and [... there are] worries that the case could lead to a hurtful racial divide.[6]

The fliers mentioned above came from the Parma branch of the National Alliance, a white supremicist group.[7]

Taking a more negative stance, liberal columnist Margery Eagan comments:

It’s time social liberals (like me) joined with the right-wing, feminist-hating, sexually uptight nuts and called this what it is: a tragedy for children. That’s judging mothers, I know. Picking on people. Stigmatizing.[8]

More stingingly, she the indicts the print and electronic media for treacly, predictable comments:

She was a wonderful mother, everyone agreed. Yet even TV commentators overlooked another obvious contradiction: Wonderful mothers do not get pregnant once, never mind twice, by a man like Bobby Cutts Jr.: a married police officer fired after links to drug trafficking and three years’ probation for breaking into another girlfriend’s home.[8]

Ultimately, however, the story is about a

San Diego on June 12.[9] "Studies in Maryland, New York and Chicago determined that about 20 percent of women who die during pregnancy are murder victims."[10] The same article states that the "No. 1 risk of death for pregnant women is the normal medical complication of childbearing, followed by traffic accidents and then homicide."[10]

References

  1. WKYC-TV, June 27, 2007
    .
  2. Chicago Sun-Times, June 26, 2007
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference AMW story was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. John Gibson, "Friday Finals: Week's Winners and Losers", Fox News, June 29, 2007
  5. ^ John McMullen, "Searching for answers", The Phanatic, June 27, 2007
  6. Repository, July 1, 2007
  7. Repository, July 1, 2007
  8. ^ a b Margery Eagan, No more overlooking negligent procreationBoston Herald, June 28, 2007
  9. Plain Dealer, July 2, 1977
  10. ^ a b "Murder Is One of Top Causes of Death for Pregnant Women", ABC News, June 26, 2007

bobby cutts is going to need his own wiki

Too much stuff coming out about the guy. Why he was allowed to join the police force when he scored amongst the lowest of those taking the entrance test? Why he was allowed back on the poliice force after being found guilty of giving his gun to a convicted felon? Why he was editing his dating website when he was? Why he had such a website to begin with? Considering there was much less controversy regarding Scott peterson and he has his own wiki, I'm at a loss as to why Bobby does not have his own. I believe that any attempt to stifle this additional wiki is an attempt by the local police force to prevent the truth being written in wikipedia about the status of his tenure as an officer. KillerPlasmodium 07:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point information should be added to his section. To get his own article, he has to have some additional notability. Add the information about his police record and such, this could eventually become an article on how some people that shouldn't become police officers wind up being one anyway.--Hourick 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even get the allegations of a history of abusing children to stick in his "section" of the wiki with Malik Shabaz to come in and claim that it's a "tangent", meanwhile planting pages of non-related political polemics and other "missing white women syndrome" fodder is apparently not. This wiki needs editors to combat this ,because this guy seems to have some admins around his finger that he can call in and get me suspnded even when I have consesnus in the talk page. Seriously. Total joke. KillerPlasmodium 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well aren't there other Admins you can get involved in this? This is getting rather insane. From what I've read (and I'm not well versed on Wikipolicy) you pretty much have to give him a warning a couple of times, come to a consensus and then he'll be banned. --Hourick 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that Cutts is notable enough to merit his own article I have two suggestions:

  1. Review Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people), as well as the discussion that took place when the original article about Cutts was nominated for deletion. (It was ultimately merged with the article about Jessie Davis to create this article.) If you draft an article about him that doesn't address those concerns, it will probably be nominated for deletion just as the first one was.
  2. Draft an article in your User space (at
    Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis#Bobby Lee Cutts, Jr.
    , insert {{main|Bobby Cutts, Jr.}} to let readers know that there's a longer article about Cutts elsewhere.

As I've written below, the issues that you're talking about don't relate to the "disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis", and since that's the subject of this article, they don't belong here. If they're important, and I don't know enough about them to say whether or not they are, the proper place for them is an article about Cutts. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki, by virtue of its title, is extremely broad and may even continue on to various aspects of the trial, since they are still related to the murder and dissapearance. I see not a single reason for the exclusion of Cutts's violent record from this wiki. The consenus seems to be in my favor, not yours, and I urge you to stop removing the material as well as to stop harassing me in my talk page.KillerPlasmodium 06
02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


edit warring between Malik Shabazz and KillerPlasmodium

He continues to remove allegations that a guy(bobby cutts) accused of murder one of his children had a history of abusing his children, claiming that that such facts are "tangents". He seems to have a history of racist posts, like continually trying to interject racist nonsense like "missing white woman synsdrome" in this wiki and other such things elsewhere in wikipedia. I can only plead there are some editors out there with any common sense to see through this attempt to bushwack this wikipdia.KillerPlasmodium 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is the disappearance and death of Cutts' pregnant girlfriend. The fact that, in an unrelated case, Cutts has been accused of child abuse is just that: unrelated to this case. It would be equally irrelevant if he had received a parking ticket or if he were a smoker.
Also, as I warned you on your Talk page, I will not tolerate your personal attacks. Continue in this vein, and you will be blocked again. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, Cutt's prior record is relevant because it sheds light on his violent character and helps answer the questions "what kind of guy would do this?" and "is this person even capable of committing such a crime?". Rklawton 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be relevant in an article about Cutts, but this is an article about the disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis. Unless he has been accused of participating in another murder, attempted murder, or similar crime, I don't see how other allegations against him are relevant to this article.
I think that including unrelated allegations against Cutts in an attempt to answer questions such as those you pose would be
original research. Tabloids are free to speculate about "what kind of man is capable of killing the mother of his children", but Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Looks like 3 editors versus your opinion Malik. Try shoving your POV down someone else's throat. And stop harassing me in my talk page with your absurd claimsKillerPlasmodium 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Civility. And that you stop your personal attacks against me. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is making personal attack against you, Malik. Your continued vandalism of this wiki against consensus is a matter of factual record. Care to explain how you continue to revert the material that 3 other editors have said should remain, yet you have no one supporting your position that the material should be removed??? You are doing nothing but deleting relevant materail as deemed by the editors of wikipedia. My reading of what vandlism is falls in line with your behavior. KillerPlasmodium 06:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some points about the allegations, they are just that allegations Cutts hasnt been convicted of any offense relating to those allegations any inclusion should be very limited as the current version states "Other allegations of abuse had previously been leveled against Cutts in Stark county",
WP:NPOV as the article is portraying Cutts in a negative light, without convictions Cutts has the right to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. Gnangarra 13:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
While the additional allegations might be relevant on the MAN (Cutts), it has no bearing on this article until DURING the trial, and even then, it should belong on a CUTTS article. I have to agree with the majority. Too much time and energy is being wasted on this. In fact, this article should be at a stand still until the trial or another major development occurs. Anything else should be placed on Cutts', his accomplice, the city's, or any other article that's related/connected to this article. --Hourick 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Malik has obviously been showing his black supremacy here by removing poor references to Cutts. Plasmodium's edits are in fact relevant, and should be included. Gold Nitrate
That's rich, coming from an editor who tried to add a photo of Bobby Cutts four times to Miscegenation [1] [2] [3] [4] and once to Black people [5]. And let's not mention your recent edit to Heidi Klum: Seal has trained Heidi's first daughter to also exclusively date black people.
In the
preceding section I explained how to write an article about Cutts, because I don't think information about him other than that directly related to the subject of this article belongs in this article. Also, please read the comments of the two editors aboce yours. My motivation for removing material from this article has nothing to do with Cutts' race, but with Wikipedia policy. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I know nothing of this article or those involved. But I would like to say that I think it was very uncalled for that KillerPlasmodium received an indefinite ban on Wikipedia for expressing his views here. The conversation was heated and he said some things that he shouldnt have, but nothing near to warrant being kicked off Wikipedia forever. The admin who gave him this block also did so without discussion and has been known around Wikipedia for being unfair towards users who he has personal feelings about. I would hope that KP is unblocked and people work together to improve this article. Thank you. -38.119.112.189 07:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki for Bobby Cutts, Jr.

I think it's come to a point where there has been enough media attention and notability for Bobby Cutts to recieve his own article, like how it was originally. Gold Nitrate 06:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at my suggestions
above. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Information Incorrect on main page

On the main page it states, "Cutts testified that he tried to resuscitate Davis after she became unconscious. He also said that he didn't call 911 because Davis didn't have a telephone in her house and her cell phone wasn't charged." This statement is untrue. I watched all of his testimony on February 11th via the internet and he stated that he wasnt able to call 911 from her phone because he didn't know how to turn it on. According to his testimony he said that the phone was turned off and plugged into it's charger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnertle (talk • contribs) 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. According to the newspaper article, "Cutts said Davis' cell phone wouldn't work". I thought that meant that it wasn't charged. I'll revise the article to clarify that he didn't know how to turn it on.
In the future, please
BE BOLD and fix any errors you see in the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Murder of Jessie Davis. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myisha Ferrall is now deceased

https://www.rhodenmemorialhome.com/obituary/MYISHA-FERRELL. She does not have a full obit but her time for calling hours and funeral are in the today's edition of the Canton repository. 96.11.212.122 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Jessie_Davis&oldid=1206893504"