Talk:People v. Jovanovic

Untitled

• Any more information on this? A GDFL image would be great! --Nemissimo II 08:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• So what about the civil suit ?? --Nemissimo II 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• In the article, Jovanovic is listed as age 20 in 1996, but born in 1966. I suspect he was, in fact, born in 1976. Googling didn't resolve this for me immediately, so I'm putting something in here so someone else can explore the matter and reconcile this discrepancy. Thanks. --68.2.185.86 (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

On the age issue: Note that it happened in 1996 when he was 20. That makes him born in 1976, not 1966. Enough to warrant changing the page? Loren Pechtel (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV.

This article looks like it's been hosed by someone with a heavy grudge. It needs to be NPOV'd; it is mostly useless as it stands for reference due to the extreme bias. I'd do it myself, but it's late here and I'm not coherent enough to edit it -- just to make a note of it for everyone else. 76.29.190.127 (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Done es138

Removing accuser's name

I have removed the victim's name from the article due to BLP concerns. It is a norm in reporting that living rape victims (alledged, confirmed, or otherwise) are not identified except when they have explititly waived that priveledge. Indeed, all major news sources reporting this case (such as the New York Times and CNN) have kept the name confidential, while only a single reliable news report actually used her name. Somewhat along the same line of reasoning as WP:BLPNAME, the name has been removed; to explain that further, it is irrelevant to the article, as she entered the news only for this event. Knowing her name does not improve any reader's understanding of the matter, and for that reason the victim's right to privacy should be honored. Further information can be found at this link, accessible to OTRS. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The person was not a rape victim. She was a false accuser. For that matter, why should wikipedia protect people (whether deserving or not). Let the truth free. If a reliable source printed it, let it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.46.136 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the name of the accuser, Jamie Rzucek, as her name has long since been a matter of "Public Record" and most notably for the fact that she no longer merits "protection" as an "innocent victim," as she has been exposed as a "perjurer" and a "False Accuser" of the crimes of kidnapping, rape and torture, which were responsible for sending an innocent man to prison. To insist on covering over the identity of someone directly responsible for such a miscarriage of justice simply because the crime of "rape" was alleged continues in the same spirit as that which led to this travesty of justice in the first place -- i.e., the "MISAPPLICATION" of so-called "Rape Shield" guidelines. Since it was proven conclusively that NO KIDNAPPPING and NO RAPE had actually occurred in this case, no protection of Ms. Rzucek's anonymity is legitimately warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.255.77 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So apparently someone removed her name again but didn't give justification of the change here. Jamie Rzucek's identity in this case is public info, included in an NPR article, and should be included here as well. I would add her name back myself but the page is locked. Who can fix this? LRonaldHubbs (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Secondary sources are enough justification for us to include the name. Could you kindly check if the article looks ok now? SPat ^talk 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)