Talk:Kevin Cooper (prisoner)

Imbalanced viewpoints?

The sole focus of this article seems to be the evidence that the man is potentially innocent, without mention of any evidence brought against him. GeeJo 01:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (ADDENDUM: This comment referred to the May 28th, 2005 version of this article.) GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this article needs fleshing out. Roland Deschain 03:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys are talking about an earlier version of this article, but as it stands now my take is quite the opposite. All the specific facts in it are the ones that suggest his guilt. What was the basis of his conviction being postponed at the last minute -- something I believe is quite rare? Catsv 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history, I find it bizarre that all the information about Cooper's potential innocence has been removed, with very little discussion here (there are some comments about there being too much about his innocence, but in the section below it seems that the statement from Joshua Ryen was added; I agree that that gives the article a 'guilty' slant). I'm going to put that info back in. In combination with the statement of Josh Ryen I think that makes a balanced article, but of course others are welcome to add other evidence of Cooper's guilt. Catsv 03:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has a POV that he is guilty. There is a summary section which is fine, withstanding the line that "The results of those DNA tests and their significance are disputed." with only a link to a 'nodeathpenalty.org' hardly a non-parisan site. Secondly, there is a "disputed guilt" section, but there is section no presentation of evidence of guilt. Besides the first hand account (which is also disputed), the entire article is devoted to convincing the reader that there is substantial doubt. Barneygumble 22:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely imbalanced and biased. It is undeniably slanted towards a guilty viewpoint. The fact that the first subsection is "Previous Criminal Record" (which has very little, if anything, to do with the topic of this article--which is the murder) is intentional to create an image of a criminal. Creating this narrative is dangerous. Previous criminal record should not be more relevant than the details of the murder (which is the second subsection). The previous criminal record section also brings up crimes Kevin Cooper was never convicted (or even charged) of. Again, that is misleading and creates a narrative of a violent criminal. Through the rest of the article, it will often introduce a criticism of the prosecution and then dismiss it in the very next sentence. I have a high respect for Wikipedia and often rely on it for information. As a doner, I am very disappointed in this biased article. Mrolfes (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I know that I'm necroposting a bit here with how old this comment is, but there are a considerable amount of issues with it. Although that having a prior criminal history does not equate to guilt to the accused at all, it does potentially establish a pattern of behavior.

For example, in this hypothetical scenario, a teenage girl is raped and murdered in her apartment. The victim's next door neighbor is a registered sex offender with 5 prior convictions of abusing teenage girls on his record and at least 8 more accusations that never went to trial. How good does that look for him, even if he possibly isn't responsible for it?

With famous offenders like John Wayne Gacy, there is a considerably large section discussing his earliest known abuses of young boys before going into his killing sprees. Laying out those details in depth is setting up Cooper's personal history and earlier alleged episodes of violence, even if that isn't the narrative you want.

Last but not least, most offenders aren't committing murder spontaneously. Usually, there is a slow build up of them carrying out petty crimes and deviances until it hits a boiling point. Refusing to acknowledge that is just putting one's head in the sand. Randomuser335S (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Complete overhaul

I have done a major overhaul on the article as it was mostly filled with unsourced claims and hearsay. The overall tone of the article has been switched from one which seems to paint Kevin Cooper as completely innocent with only flimsy evidence to convict him...to one which is much more realistic and presents both the information behind the murders as well as the evidence presented against him. There's still got a lot of work left on it but I actually trimmed a lot of the fat and shortened the header and organized the page. If you have complaints about something I've removed please say why, but pretty much everything I removed was either unsourced or pure fabrication. BeardedScholar (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

why is this in article?

"Outside Cooper's trial the KKK and Aryan Nations conducted ritual lynchings."

wtf??? is this serious, can someone delete this, i see no sources.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.175.22 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sole Purpose?

I disagree with the suggestion that this article primarily portrays Cooper as potentially innocent. I'd say the first hand account of survivor Joshua Ryen (in bold print) is pretty conclusively suggesting that the man is anything but innocent.

I agree, I also interpreted the article as framing Cooper as guilty. The inclusion of evidence in the case would be helpful.

Just as a note, that first hand account wasnt on the article when I made the comment. I'd agree it presents its case a bit more thoroughly now :) GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

DNA evidence

I changed the part about the DNA evidence to say it is disputed rather than that it supports his guilt, because in fact it is in dispute. I added a citation to a page that disputes that the evidence implicates Cooper. I know the article previously said the evidence did suggest his guilt, so it would be good to cite a source for that claim as well. Catsv 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest- I don't know how much I want to trust "nodeathpenalty.org". Doesn't sound very neutral to me. -RomeW

It's not neutral, it's the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, which was heavily involved in defending Cooper. But the information they provide is quite detailed. Taking their non-neutrality into consideration, I still find it significant, at least without a similarly detailed refutation. Catsv 02:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RomeW. Barneygumble 22:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Jury Composition?

Since the comment about the jury being "all-white" was removed, I think it's prudent to ask what the makeup of the jury was. If it was indeed all-white then that must be noted, since it would be an important part of Cooper's defence. -RomeW

All reports I have seen indicate that it was indeed all-white.Catsv 06:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This article should include the evidence used against him

There was plenty of it.

Cooper admitted to hiding out in a vacant house next door to the Ryens. At the vacant house, a blood-stained khaki green button identical to the buttons on field jackets issued at the state prison from which Cooper escaped was found on the rug. Tests revealed the presence of blood in the shower and bathroom sink of the vacant home, and hair found in the bathroom sink was consistent with that of Jessica and Doug Ryen. A bloodstained rope in the house bedroom was similar to a bloodstained rope found on the Ryens' driveway. A hatchet covered with dried blood and human hair that was found near the Ryens' home was missing from the vacant house, and the sheath for the hatchet was found in the bedroom where Cooper stayed. Buck knives and at least one ice pick were also missing from the vacant home, though a strap from one buck knife was found on the floor. Blood found in the Ryens' home was the victims', except for one drop on a wall near where the murders occurred. It belonged to an African-American male, which Cooper is. Two partial shoe prints and one nearly complete shoe print found in the Ryens' house were consistent both with Cooper's size and the Pro Ked shoes issued at CIM. The Ryens' vehicle, which had been parked outside their house, was missing when the bodies were discovered but was later found in Long Beach. A hand-rolled cigarette butt and "Role-Rite" tobacco that is provided to inmates at CIM (but not sold at retail) was in the car. Similar loose leaf tobacco was found in the bedroom of the house where Cooper had stayed. A witness testified that Cooper smoked handrolled cigarettes using Role-Rite tobacco. A hair fragment discovered in the car was consistent with Cooper's pubic hair and a spot of blood found in the car could have come from one of the victims but not from Cooper.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.72.235 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 

Except that it ignores key information

1.) Cooper was wearing a BROWN prison jacket rather than a green one so the button shouldn't have been green. 2.) The button was only found after officer Steven Moran claimed he never entered the room when in fact he had (his prints were on the closet door) 3.) The "blood" could just have easily been bleach (luminol reacts to bleach and Bilbia admitted that she HAD used bleach to clean the place. The hairs are more difficult but since the family used the house back when Mary Howell was the occupier the hair could have come from that time. 4.) There were key differences between the two ropes (one had a center cord) and the Ryens weren't tied up so it may well have been planted 5.) The hatchet didn't neccissarily come from the house; Peggy Ryen had black paint in the hatchet wound on her head, implying the blade had black paint on it. The Hatchet from the house had no paint. Add that each employee described it in different places and it becomes more murky. Add in the fact that Mary Ann Hughes directly asked the employees what they were telling Cooper's investigators and they may have unintentionally had their impartiality tainted, while the fact that the sheath was only located AFTER Moran entered the room and reported nothing (leaving his prints on the closet door) leaves the possibility that Moran planted the sheath during his search. 6.) That was never mentioned in the transcript; only a hatchet was reported missing. 7.) The blood stain was subjected to improper testing by Daniel Gregonis (who was forced to admit he had committed perjury.) Gregonis also checked out A41 (along with cooper's saliva and blood) for 24 hours in 99, more than enough to plant evidence if need be. 8.) The first print was only found after Baird (who was later fired for stealing heroin) got his hand on a set of pro keds. The second print was only noticed after officers had trampled it and after the deputy who first sketched the prints was told to look again. 9.) Incidentally Lee Furrow's stepmother lived in Long Beach (less than 4 miles from where it was deposited) 10.) The cigarettes were only found on the third search AFTER the officers failed to process tobacco and cigarettes from the house. 11.) The hair was not only never identified as pubic it was only found later.

Basically, there are reasonable counterarguments for most of the above; the fact Cooper was in the house is undeniable but Cooper himself admitted as much. What IS deniable is the physical evidence. Given that Daniel Gregonis has come under fire for three more incidents, that Sheriff Tidwell was caught stealing guns, that Deputy Baird was stealing heroin, and that San Bernardino has a long history of corruption, and there is actually a pretty good argument that a lot of the evidence was planted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.201 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KevinCooper Mugshot.jpg

Image:KevinCooper Mugshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed guilt?

Under that heading one of the items mentioned is about demonstrations against him being held outside of the courthouse and an instance of a toy gorilla hung in effigy, supposedly representing Cooper. But it fails to mention how this fact disputes his guilt. Sounds to me like quite the opposite. I'm thinking maybe the toy gorilla effigy helps in his defense that he was framed by racists? But I don't think it's trying to say that the ones demonstrating outside are actually the ones who framed him. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something here?

Response: The racist demonstrations outside the court neither dispute nor affirm his guilt. They do show that the trial was conducted in an environment hostile to the defendant -- an environment that may have made it impossible for the defendant to get a fair trial, even imagining that a Black man accused of a brutal murder of white people could ever get a fair trial, unless he had O.J. Simpson's millions of dollar for lawyers and investigators to match the millions of dollars generally available to prosecutors when they need it. Aarons510 (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This Article Cites Unreliable Sources and Could Be Improved if Someone Takes the Time to Review the Publicly Available Court Records

In my opinion, this article should also mention Cooper v. Brown, 565 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2009). In fact, an enthusiastic and detail-oriented Wikipedia contributor should probably go through this opinion in detail and do what is necessary to correct the factual statements in this article. Cooper v. Brown contains a 114 page dissent by Judge William Fletcher which discusses in detail the evidence for and against Cooper's conviction. Fletcher's dissent is based on the evidence which was brought out at the trial, and is also based on evidence which was found and submitted in the numerous appellate hearings that have taken place since then. Notably, Fletcher's dissent contains many factual assertions which are part of the trial record and which conflict from some of the information which is contained in Wikipedia's Kevin Cooper article. For example, a contributor to the Wikipedia article has included the statement that "Roper stated that she learned this information [regarding the bloody overalls] through a vision during a trance, and she had no other reason to suspect her boyfriend." This statement actually has a citation (there aren't very many in this article), however the link leads to a rather dubious website that itself does not substantiate or cite any source material for the claim that Ms. Roper was in a trance and had no other reason. On the other hand, Fletcher's opinon goes into great detail about Ms. Roper, and includes her testimony to investigators. There is no mention whatsoever of a trance: Roper stated that she saw her boyfriend, Lee Furrow, come into their shared residence late at night, wearing overalls (rather than the beige shirt he had worn earlier in the day). According to Roper's statements, the overalls were covered in blood, and Lee Furrow quickly changed clothes, leaving the overalls on the floor, and then left the house on his motorcycle. Roper's statements were substantiated by other witnesses. In fact, if Roper had been in a trance and had no other reason to believe that Furrow was connected to the crime, one wonders where she got the bloody overalls which she gave to the police. I don't have the time to write an exhaustive Wikipedia article, but I certainly hope that someone who does have the time will go through this one, check the sources, and read Cooper v. Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.72.235 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Federal Appeals Court Judge William A. Fletcher said in a lecture to a law school.

[Excerpt, with page numbers in brackets, from:]

The Death Penalty: Where Do We Go From Here?
Gonzaga University School of Law
Justin L. Quackenbush Inaugural Lecture
William A. Fletcher
April 12, 2010

[...]

I will begin with police investigation. The case I am about to describe is horrible in many ways. The murders were horrible. Kevin Cooper, the man now sitting on death row, may well be — and in my view probably is — innocent. And he is on death row because the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department framed him. You can find my dissent from our failure to take this case en banc at 565 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2009).

On the morning of June 5, 1983, a father came to the semi-rural home in Chino Hills, California, where his son had spent the night as an overnight guest. He found the mother and father, their daughter, and his own son dead, killed during the night. They had been chopped with a hatchet, sliced with a knife or knives, and stabbed with an ice-pick or ice-picks. The son of the dead mother and father, Josh Ryan, had been left for dead, but he survived. His throat had been cut. The family station wagon was gone. The mother’s purse was in plain sight on the kitchen counter, but no money had been taken.

The San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department Deputies who responded to the call, decided almost immediately who was the likely killer. Kevin Cooper had escaped two days earlier from a nearby minimum security prison by walking across [13] an open field. He had hidden out in the house next door, 125 yards away, for two days. He had repeatedly called two women friends from this house, asking for money to help with his escape. They had refused. Cooper testified at trial that he had left his hideout house as soon as it got dark on June 4, and had hitchhiked to Mexico. We know that Cooper checked in to a hotel in Tijuana at 4:30 on the afternoon of June 5. Tijuana is about 50 miles south of Chino Hills. The family station wagon was discovered several days later in a church parking lot in Long Beach, California, about 100 miles west of Chino Hills.

Eight-year-old Josh was “interviewed” at the hospital by a clinical social worker. Because his throat had been cut, he could not talk. He pointed to letters and numbers on a clipboard, indicating that there had been 3 or 4 killers, and that they had been white. Cooper is black. During his stay in the hospital, Josh twice saw a picture of Cooper on the television. Both times, he said that Cooper was not one of the killers. A Sheriff’s Department Deputy interviewed Josh at the hospital after the social worker and got him to change his story so that he no longer said that three or four white men had done it. Eventually, Josh said that he had seen a black man with a great “poof” of hair standing over his parents’ bed. At the time of the killing, Cooper had had his hair in cornrows. At the time of his arrest six months later — which was widely shown on television — he had his hair in an Afro. [14]

During the next day or so, Sheriff’s Department deputies “discovered” — I use the word in quotation marks — a bloody button from a prison-issue jacket in the house where Cooper had been hiding out. They discovered it in the middle of the floor of an empty bedroom that had previously been searched. The Sheriff’s Department later learned that the prison jacket Cooper had been wearing had had buttons of a different color. Deputies also “discovered” footprints in the murder house and the hideout house that supposedly matched prison-issue tennis shoes that are not sold on the open market. But they managed not to respond to a telephone call from the prison Warden who said that, after inquiry at the prison, she had learned that such special shoes where not worn in her prison. And they managed not to pass on to Cooper and his lawyers the fact that the prison Warden had called them.

On June 9, a woman named Diana Roper called the Sheriff’s Department to tell them that her boyfriend, Lee Furrow, had come home in the early hours on the night of June 4. He arrived in an unfamiliar station wagon with some people who stayed in the car. He changed out of his overalls, which he left on the floor of a closet. He was not wearing a t-shirt that he had been wearing earlier in the day. He left the house after about five minutes and did not return. Roper called her father the next day to come look at the overalls. They both concluded that the overalls [15] were spattered with blood. Roper turned the overalls over to the Sheriff’s Department and told the deputy that she thought Furrow was involved in the murders. Roper later provided an affidavit stating that a bloody t-shirt found beside the road leading from the murder house had been Furrow’s. It was a Fruit-of-the- Loom t-shirt with a breast pocket. Roper stated that she recognized it because she had bought it for him. She also stated that a bloody hatchet found beside the road matched a hatchet that was now missing from her garage.

Furrow had been released from state prison a year earlier. He had been part of a murderous gang, but had been given a short sentence in return for turning state’s evidence against the leader of the gang. The leader was sentenced to death. Furrow told friends that while he was part of the gang he killed a girl, cut up her body, and thrown her body parts into the Kern River. The Sheriff’s Department never tested the overalls for blood, never turned them over to Cooper or his lawyers, and threw them away in a dumpster on the day of Cooper’s arraignment.

Cooper has maintained his innocence from the beginning. Long after his conviction — by which time DNA testing had become available — he sought DNA testing of blood on the t-shirt. The DNA testing showed Cooper’s blood on the tshirt. Cooper claimed that the only way his blood could be on the t-shirt was that it had been planted by the authorities. The Sheriff’s Department had taken blood [16] from him at the time of his arrest and had put it in a vial containing a preservative. Cooper asked that the blood on the t-shirt be tested for the presence of the preservative. I will not delay you by recounting the way in which this testing was bungled. I will say only the following. During the testing process, the Sheriff’s Department inadvertently sent to one of the labs a sample of blood from the vial containing Cooper’s blood. The lab was startled to discover that this sample contained the DNA of two people — Cooper and one other person. Remember the trick of the teenager who takes whiskey from his parents’ bottle, and who then adds something to the bottle to bring it back up to the right level.

There is more, but you get the idea. What happened is a familiar story. It is by no means the usual story. But it happens often enough to be familiar. The police are under heavy pressure to solve a high profile crime. They know, or think they know, who did the crime. And they plant evidence to help their case along. By the time Diana Roper called the Sheriff’s Department a few days after the murder, eight-year-old Josh had been persuaded that he had been wrong about the three or four white men. (Josh decided later that the murderer had had a “poof” of hair.) The bloody button had been “discovered.” And the and the footprints in the two houses had been “discovered.” The bloody coveralls were, to say the least, inconvenient. So they were thrown away

[End of excerpt]

The full lecture can be found at http://www.savekevincooper.org/Scripts/DataLibraries/upload/GONZAGA%20Lecture.pdf.

I think this summary by a Federal Judge who has intensively studied the case shows that the article as it stands at this time is so biased against Cooper as to constitute -- please excuse the pun! -- a hatchet job. it would be far better to have no article at all until a fair one can be written. --Aarons510 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Aarons510, I agree that the article needs some work to bring it to a neutral point of view. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Aarons510, I disagree. Fletcher wrote an extended dissent to the refusal of the Ninth Circuit to rehear en banc. That means that (1) the panel decision upholding the district court's decision to deny the writ stands and (2) a majority of Ninth Circuit judges refused to rehear the case. Fletcher's opinion isn't even a dissent to the panel decision, but a dissent to a en banc rehearing. It is what it is and it's mentioned in the article, but it has no real legal value. To give Fletcher's opinion more space in the article would make the article unbalanced.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not true that a majority of Ninth Circuit Judges refused to hear the case. The case was not heard by the full Ninth Circuit, only by a panel. That's what the dissent was about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.104.74 (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's incorrect: "The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to hear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration." Also, your most recent edits are WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and non-neutral. I've removed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was a slim margin (3 judges were the majority) and at least one of them all but stated that were it not for the AEDPA she would have given relief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.201 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've added a cite and some material. The article seems to balance the arguments for and against Cooper's conviction, and cites to the major judicial opinions on both sides. Is there any objection to removing the tag? THF (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added some more material, and rearranged the sections. Since I see from your user page that you're a lawyer, I'd appreciate if you would look over the material I've added for accuracy & neutrality. I have no objection to removing the NPOV tag. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also done some editing, including some clarifications about legal issues and some rewordings. I haven't read everything yet to make sure the assertions conform to the sources, but I haven't seen anything thus far to indicate any POV or bias. Absent objections to specific material, the tag may be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin Cooper (inmate). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/content/new_abolitionist.php?issue_id=1&story_id=9

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No such thing as DNA or not, can be any no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendr (talk • contribs) 17:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Fletcher's accusations

During his dissent Fletcher accuses Judge Huff of deliberately ignoring the Ninth Circuit's instructions, saying “The district court failed to provide Cooper a fair hearing and flouted our direction to perform the two tests.”

Among others he says she denied the defense any say in selecting the portions of the t shirt were to be tested, ignoring that three of the alleged control samples had DNA in them (which essentially rendered her findings erroneous), and purposely limiting Mitochondrial testing to hairs that had already been tested even though by her own expert's admission there were numerous hairs that had NOT been tested (which doomed the testing from the start) while also refusing to allow inquiry into why Cooper's blood vial had more than one person's blood in it.. He also argued that Gary Siuzdak's refusal to submit his notes to verify his contamination claims were deceptive. Judge Pamela Rymer seemed to express extreme anger at these accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.201 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kevin Cooper (murderer). 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/20070928021550/http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/2002/10/04/1033707438.html to http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/2002/10/04/1033707438.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202223229/http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/dapressreleases/common_documents/Cooper.pdf to http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/dapressreleases/common_documents/Cooper.pdf

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. 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) 22:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No relief or not about it, can any relaxed no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendr (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Added new information

I added info that was present in the dissent by Judge Fletcher (the fact that an officer had lied about entering the room where Cooper had slept before it had officially been searched), and by Judge McKeown (an officer lied about the fact he had considered the coveralls of value). I also added how a social worker contradicted the state's theory at trial by saying that Josh had specified that the attackers were NOT Mexican (which contradicted the state's theory that Josh was confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.201 (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Already done DrStrauss talk 20:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Kevin Cooper (murderer) → Kevin Cooper – The title "Kevin Cooper (murderer)" implies that he is guilty. In fact there is a well-established claim that he is factually innocent and the term (murderer) or even (inmate) is prejudicial and violates Neutral Point of View. Please consider changing the title of the article back to "Kevin Cooper" without any brackets, or at least don't use (Murderer). 208.121.64.7 (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support move back to Kevin Cooper (inmate). Was moved on Nov 1, 2016 with no discussion, with a reason giving a misunderstanding of why the subject is entirely notable, and as anon points out, in violation of WP:NPOV. No real indication this Kevin Cooper is the primary topic. Anyway, the unilateral move back in November is controversial and contested and should be undone. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've moved this to Kevin Cooper (prisoner) without closing the discussion due to the BLP policy. It doesn't sit right with me that he's branded a murderer in the title, while most of the article is about his possible innocence. Conviction in a court of law is often a good standard for treating an allegation as fact, but not here. —Guanaco 06:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The other issue here is of whether this is the primary topic. If we move this to Kevin Cooper, we need to first establish that he's more notable than the three athletes listed. —Guanaco 06:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - there are a lot of BLP articles using the "(murderer)" disambiguator, many of whom also protest their innocence. If we decide to move this one then we would also have to consider moving all the others. I think this probably needs a wider discussion, to maintain consistency. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  I've posted to WP:BLP/N#(murderer), etc. for disambiguation about this issue. —Guanaco 14:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Move back to Kevin Cooper (inmate). None of those people on the dab page should be the primary topic. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:30E8:FB79:2979:709C (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

California Supreme Court Ruling

I made the following edit but it was reverted.

The Supreme Court of California affirmed Cooper’s conviction in 1991.
"The evidence of guilt was extremely strong. Many items of circumstantial evidence pointed to defendant's guilt. Some alone were quite compelling; others less so. In combination, the evidence established defendant's guilt 
overwhelmingly... It is utterly unreasonable to suppose that by coincidence, some hypothetical real killer chose this night and this locale to kill; that he entered the Lease house just after defendant left to retrieve the murder 
weapons, leaving the hatchet sheath in the bedroom defendant used; that he returned to the Lease house to shower; that he drove the Ryen station wagon in the same direction defendant used on his way to Mexico; and that he happened 
to wear prison issue tennis shoes like those of defendant, happened to have defendant's blood type, happened to have hair like defendant's, happened to roll cigarettes with the same distinctive prison issue tobacco, and so forth. 
Defendant sought to discredit or minimize each of these items of evidence, but the sheer volume and consistency of the evidence is overwhelming."

Procedural history

Readers should know that the California Supreme Court ruled on the case. That is vital procedural history. Even if you want to take the blockquote out at least allow the page to say "The Supreme Court of California affirmed Cooper’s conviction in 1991."

Blockquote

Readers should know why the court ruled the way it did. The quote cited explains exactly that.

In all honesty, it seems to me like people are using this page to promote their idea that Cooper is innocent. This page should give a balanced take on the crime and not an activist pro-Cooper take. If you don't like the way the court ruled, that's fine. But that doesn't make their ruling and the reasoning behind it less significant or less deserving to be in the article. You personal opinion based on your support for Cooper does not override the the opinion of experienced California Supreme Court justices. LaraGingerbread (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

I reverted several edits by this IP user. I have no opinion on the case, nor on the innocence or guilt of Kevin Cooper, but that IP user's edits were completely unacceptable. Disagreeing with the court, or believing that the court "got it wrong" does not change what the court said. Perhaps @Justlettersandnumbers: can explain why they thought your additions were not relevant. -drt1245 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If you look at the edits this person made and the reasoning they give for them it becomes clear as day that they believe Cooper is innocent. They are taking out important information because it goes against the narrative they want to promote. This is not a Pro-Cooper blog. This is not his fan club. This is supposed to be a balanced page that explains the case to those whoa are interested.

Besides, most of the problems they have with my edits can be addressed in the "Possible Manipulation of evidence" section. If what they say is true and the evidence was manipulated then they should be able to share that argument. Instead they are ignoring evidence against Cooper entirely and trying to prevent readers from learning of the evidence against him.LaraGingerbread (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

Hi. I'm the user in question. Part of the issue was that you were only linking the state's side and presenting it as fact. It should be balanced and I did go to far. The problem is that you yourself failed to include legal statements from other experts (Fletcher for instance shares DNA results that back up the idea that Huff made a mistake when she claimed the controls were legitimate.) I kept your later edits but added clarification info (linking to Judge Fletcher) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0C:560E:EC2F:B2AC:BD5B:2E48 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. We can have sources from the state and from the defense for each fact given. And for every court ruling given we will talk about the majority opinions against Cooper along with any dissenting opinions in favor of him. LaraGingerbread (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

Fair enough. And again I'm sorry if I went overboard. I linked Fletcher in the EDTA because he DOES specifically address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0C:560E:50B3:EE25:EB45:1A19 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. LaraGingerbread (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

Evidence section

The article has an entire section dedicated to the possible manipulation of evidence. To make the page more balanced I am creating a section about the evidence against him. It doesn't make any sense to have a section about manipulation of evidence without first discussing what that evidence is. If you disagree with something in here address it in the Possible manipulation of evidence section. Evidence against him that got him convicted is EXTREMELY important, especially given the controversy surrounding his conviction.LaraGingerbread (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread.

Furrow

I am deleting suggestions of Furrow's guilt. He has never been convicted of the crime. Wikipedia is not a place to promote slanderous conspiracy theories.

With this revision, you are removing properly cited research from a legal expert. You are doing exactly what you have been complaining about, removing text that does not support your view. -drt1245 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I will at least put evidence in favor of Furrow to balance it out.

Biased?

I feel like this article is a bit imbalanced, but I would like some feedback before making any significant changes.

Here are some examples:

• The article begins with: "Kevin Cooper is an African American man currently on death row at San Quentin Prison." I'm not sure that this really holds much significance to the subject of bias, but I don't think it's exactly necessary to identify him by his race as opposed to nationality, unless race is a big issue here.
• The sections about the possible manipulation of evidence and Lee Furrow as an alternate suspect are noticeably longer than anything about the actual crime that Cooper was convicted of or his trial. I understand that a lot of people believe that Cooper is innocent, and I am willing to entertain that idea, but the way it is worded seems to suggest that Cooper is definitley innocent, when in fact his innocence is still contested. Plus, I think it would be good to pare these two sections down or edit them to provide balanced info.
• Back to the lead section, it identifies Cooper as a 'man.' Cooper is a convict, and was previously convicted of lesser crimes (theft, burglary). I feel that it would be more appropriate to identify him as something other than a 'man.'

I would welcome any feedback before I make any significant edits. Comitialbulb561 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that identifying Kevin Cooper by race is not necessary and also it can be misleading since mentioning it can suggest that he was framed by police because he was African American but I wouldn't be so sure about your claim that he should be identified "as something other than a 'man'". It feels like you think that him being a man is less important than him being a convict, which I disaggre. Kuraczan (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)