Talk:Bonnie Garland murder case

Murder?

Is it right to say that Bonnie Garland was 'murdered' even though Herrin was only convicted of manslaughter and found not guilty of murder?

Yes, I think so. The prima facie evidence would strongly suggest a murder was committed and that is what the Police investigators appear to have found and what the perpetrator was initially charged with. What was finally determined in Court depends on the facts of the case and mitigating circumstances, such as "temporary" insanity or diminished responsibility, as well as plea bargaining, etc. But that is also why the article title is a .... murder case rather than a murder of .... article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

---

-

The article needs to be rewritten to remove the POV bias in such sentences as The relegation of the victim to the background and the protective shield thrown up by a supposedly moral community around an unrepentant killer has become a more familiar theme in contemporary jurisprudence, but the Garland case foreshadowed others in which the victim was transparently put on trial. RickK 18:41, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

So do it. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD

On April 28, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bonnie Garland murder case. The result was keep. —Xezbeth 14:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The article should be kept so that everyone can see how biased the jurors were in this case. They say money talks.... and this case just backs up that statement in every possible way. How can the jury not realize that this man is a murderer. He killed Bonnie and he was NOT insane. This was not a case of 2nd degree murder but rather a case or pre-meditated FIRST DEGREE MURDER. Richard Herrin searched the house for something to hurt Bonnie with and he had every intention of killing her. He's a psychopath. He got the hammer, wrapped it in a towel, left it outside her bedroom door while he went inside to make sure she was still asleep. When he verified that she was still asleep he went back in and smashed her head in with the hammer. How is that not pre-meditated murder???

Well, of course it should remain as it is: the complaint about neutrality came from someone clearly unfamiliar with the case. (That was months ago, of course, so perhaps someone should remove the notice...not me, since I wrote the thing.) I suppose I was handicapped by actually having read the books on the case. - Nunh-huh 00:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Essay moved from article

The following, added by anon 68.111.9.7, seems to address a straw man, and seems based on personal analysis. If references could be found that someone of significance has alleged that Herrin was released "early", it could be condensed and added back to address that (attributed) concern. - Nunh-huh 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

'Richard Herrin was not released "early" as many seem to believe. Based upon the sentencing law in force in NY at the time, an indeterminate sentence of 8 1/3-25 years could be meted out as follows.

Scenario 1: Inmate serves 8 1/3 years and becomes eligible for parole. Parole is granted. Scenario 2: Inmate serves 8 1/3 years and becomes eligible for for parole. Parole is denied. A sate is set for the next possible parole consideration, no later than 2 years hence.

Scenario 3: Inmate is denied parole at established increments from the Parole Board and reaches 2/3 of his maximum term. In this case 2/3 of 25 years. Inmate serves 16 2/3 years and is released on what NY called conitional release (C.R.)

The quirk of NY law at that time is that "good time" comes of the back of the sentence (1/3 of 25 years, unless the inmate loses that good time through tickets, lock-ups, or new crimes.)

Herrin appears to have reached his C.R. date, and thus did not receive any benefit of his association from supporters or or burdens from detractors.

According to his personal account of future plans,Mr. Herrin planned to attend Law School in L.A. upon release to study International Law. His name does not appear on the CA Bar Associations's list of practicing attorneys.'

Self-link

You can click on the hyperlink "Bonnie Garland" in this article to be taken to...this article. Why should it link to itself? That's silly and I'm going to remove the hyperlink.Evil bacteria (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bonnie Garland murder case. 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/20050520070850/http://www.epinions.com:80/content_175942569604 to http://www.epinions.com/content_175942569604

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement "....Herrin arranged, with Garland's knowledge, to come to Scarsdale to discuss their relationship", while not actually untrue, is somewhat misleading. It gives the impression that Garland was as eager to discuss their relationship as was Herrin. Actually, she was not. Herrin decided while still in Texas that he wanted to discuss their relationship. Garland had not weighed in on this. Herrin decided while still in Texas to fly to New York to discuss the relationship in person, and this was done without Garland's knowledge. Herrin went to stay with a friend in Long Island, and from there he called Garland and told her he was in New York state and wanted to see her to discuss their relationship. Thus it was only after Garland was contacted by a Herrin who had already taken the trouble and gone to the expense of flying to New York from Texas that she agreed to see him in person and do the discussing. It's obvious she was not strongly motivated to do so and would have been content to say goodbye to Herrin via phone with no prolonged discussion. 2600:6C5D:5A00:3694:C43C:A964:49E6:18B0 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)