Talk:Orlando Anderson

Las Vegas homicide detective Lt. Larry Spinosa said, "At this point, Orlando Anderson is not a suspect in the shooting of Tupac Shakur."

How could ANYONE interpret that to mean he was a supect!? It's ok to say that he is widely accused of it by media and the public, and that he did have legal issues in civil court, that is ok by

it was. You even say he was detained... and he was detained as a suspect. In the linked interview he even says that he was an on-again-off-again suspect. I'm trying to be careful here, and to walk a fine line and keep the article objective, but two people have come by now and reversed edits that are verifiable (check tons of news stories with headlines that read "suspect arrested in connection..."). I mean I even changed the line that called him a Crip to "alleged" because we can only go on the assertion and his denial later to the media.

Please understand that this is not so easy to source or to verify because even the AP carried contradicting stories published the same day (did the gang sweep arrest 21, 22 or 23 'gang members'?). And again the news stories of this time were not being published online as many had no web-presence at the time of the events. This man is no doubt notable because the police told media he was "of interest" and he was always a focus of their investigations - if you are going to deny that just delete the article.

I'm not editing this page as a Tupac fan and have no vested interests, but even a budding police detective connects the events of that evening - why do people deny what anyone would see as a possible motive? I'm not writing here that the CIA or Suge shot Tupac - your suggestion I have bias because I have interest in these events (it's sensational, I'll admit) is upsetting. I tried to do heavy editing of the existing article which was ignored until now - I plan on giving it a rewrite as soon as possible to reflect the three types of information; known events not in dispute, events in dispute and the fallout of the speculation (which would be the biggest part of the story which isn't even alluded to here - Anderson thought it was important to make it known the media and publics belief affected his life in a real way and that story should be told here). JoeHenzi (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm just trying to argue - but there is a difference between being a suspect and being cleared as one. He may have been cleared after two days of questioning, but you don't get questioned for two days for being a guy who just happened to be in town. Since the events are basically unknown maybe it is best to provide as many of the facts as possible and then let the reader speculate? Maybe we can agree to phrase things as while cleared by the Las Vegas police in October of 1996 Orlando was detained and question in regards to the shooting of Tupac? I think removing items or statements is a bad move when the article needs more explanation and not less. Sorry to seem angry or whatnot, I just didn't like being called POV on a topic where I see two victims - both sets of events are tragic, I would not propose to libel Mr. Anderson. JoeHenzi (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bias statement was about the content contradicting the source given. (which i updated today) it was not intended as a personal attack (especially since i didnt even look to see if it was one or multiple people, i just made a statement sorry if you took it that way). As for him being a "suspect" rather then a "Person of interest" which is different, I've not seen a source on that, but i have seen a source with a direct quote from a las vegas detective saying he was not which i quoted above in blockquotes. Yes i said he was detained, because thats not arrest which is what the article said. As for not being easy to source, that may be true, but if its not sourced then it needs to be removed. Difficulty in finding a source does not excuse the need for a source. I am not a Tupac fan, i couldnt name even 1 song he wrote. I just randomly edit articles i find via clicking stuff Smitty1337 (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful to not put anything there that wasn't sourced, but also didn't duplicate reference links when two statements came from the same story but were in two places in the article to make the copy-edit make sense. Then again I also was getting tired too and I could have transposed something that I didn't mean to (or forgot where I read it exactly/got sources mixed up). My first step was to actually source what as marked as unknown and reword what I needed too. Do enough research and you'll find that it's hard to find out who in the police departments who investigated felt he was really connected, each jurisdiction contradicts itself at times. The affidavit (challenged by Anderson and his legal teams, of course) is the strongest evidence of police being suspect of Anderson. This statement I base on the legal purpose of the affidavit, it is necessary and is a tool in California to obtain search warrants (which were executed) and is signed by a judge after he/she feels it provides sufficient evidence to provide a search warrant, a detention for questioning, etc. I like Tupac songs but am not a fanatic and know the theorists, and see where their 'stories' are fiction. My interest in this topic is to do research on the issue only - I don't care much for the rumors, muddles your opinion. I plan to find reliable sources and where appropriate for WP place statements here that are verifiable and non-trivial. JoeHenzi (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on a side note... it was actually pretty easy to find a source lol. Suge Knight: The Rise, Fall, and Rise of Death Row Records: The Story of Marion 'Suge' Knight, a Hard Hitting Study of One Man, One Company That Changed the Course of American Music Forever. Published book, Page 32 states he is a suspect. gonna go work that in now Smitty1337 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, read enough sources and you'll become a suspect. Maybe it should be noted that he was "a person of interest among others such as ...". For example "King Tut" of the Black Mafia in NYC was suspected and accused by Federal investigators.JoeHenzi (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

true there are lots of conspiracies, but the source is published and has a decent bibliography, and wikipedia is about verifiability not truthSmitty1337 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help JoeHenzi (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this would appear to be selfpublished and as such not considered a reliable source. Please consider finding better sources if you are so inclined, i will review this site further to see if i can find anything that would redeem it to meet the standards of

Yes, if you go on the URL alone it would appear that way but all the site has done is compiled actual news stories and reproduced them online (possible copyright issues aside, this is one of the best NPOV sources online). While they are all under the heading of 'more information' about Tupac, they aren't POV and are not opinion pieces (hell, this page is more reliable than the LA Times and the LV Sun I'd say! I shy away from Cathy Scott who points to Anderson early and often with no more evidence than what the police revealed). Again, it's hard because there isn't a lot of free sources of information online due to the time in which the events took place. The articles written years later are speculative and have doubtful reporting.

Again, this article has been abandoned somewhat and I've removed the links to the various 2pac fan sites and replaced them with actual news stories - where was everyone when it was a lot worse? Why the high horse by people who are just now visiting? People feel as if they have a duty to take care of a child they abandoned long ago. It's a work in progress, let's try to move it forward and not backward. JoeHenzi (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says at the bottom of the first paragraph 'he is the real killer'....wtf? fix that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.201.162 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say he's very handsome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.104 (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. I just reverted it though. Smitty1337 (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although someone added that Cathy Scott's theory implicates Orlando Anderson, it is not clear to me that this is correct. In her 2002 book on Pac, she reviews various theories of his murder including the Suge Knight/Death row theory before finally stating "Years after the primary investigations, it's still anyone's guess. No one was ever arrested but no one was ever ruled out as a suspect, either." She then concludes oddly enough that one theory "transcends all the others, and implicates the white-record-comany power brokers themselves." implicating the bosses of the Suge Knight label.^[1] The reference to her book in context doesn't make senseScholarlyarticles (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]