Talk:Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer

USER MollyMy76: You deleted my changes, and said that by doing so you "clarified the CTA trial and Smith". Well, you have done neither. In fact, you have removed necessary information regarding the CTA case as it relates to Dwyer. My edits should remain and have thus been re included: "the convicted felon" phrase has been removed. As I have stated, this phrase is (1) Partisan and (2) repetitive- being convicted of "lying under oath" at a court trial (which I mention) clearly puts Mr. Smith in the category of "convicted felon", so "the convicted felon" phrase is redundant. Further more the CTA case was not merely one trial as seem you imply. William Smith took part in 2 trials related to the CTA case, and the reader should be aware at which trial he claimed that he lied at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanzsd (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"the man whose false testimony convicted Dwyer."

The court, at Mr. Dwyer's trial, decided Mr. Smith's testimony was certainly not "false"- hence the guilty verdict. Now, a lot of people believe Mr. Smith has recanted his testimony and admitted to lying that he offered Mr. Dwyer a bribe. This is in no way the case. Mr.Smith has consistently stated that he lied WHEN he stated (at HIS OWN trial- a trial that preceded Dwyer's) that he did NOT offer Dwyer a bribe. He stated (In the "Honest Man" documentary) that he did in fact offer Dwyer the bribe and Dwyer accepted this offer. The court accepted Mr.Smith's evidence, and Dwyer was found guilty. Pure conjecture is not accepted on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanzsd (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"and William T. Smith, the convicted felon who lied under oath during the CTA trial."

Being a convicted felon makes Smith seem like an unreliable witness against Dwyer, but would he be a convicted felon if he had not bribed Dwyer? It seems like there is a "catch-22" sort of hole in this reasoning. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on spinning facts which are technically true facts when viewed in isolation, but there is some heavy spin going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B930:7B90:C429:D03A:A002:5247 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. I deem this phrase as displaying bias-- trying to present Smith as an unreliable witness-- and also as being redundant. In summary: The "the convicted felon who lied under oath during the CTA trial" phrase is (1) Partisan and (2) repetitive- being convicted of "lying under oath" at a court trial (which I mention in the article) clearly puts Mr. Smith in the category of "convicted felon", so "the convicted felon" phrase is redundant, and (3) misleading and confusing-- the CTA case was not merely one trial as the editor in question implies. William Smith took part in 2 trials related to the CTA case, and the reader should be aware which particular trial he claimed that he lied at (he claimed he lied at his own 1985 trial when he stated he did not offer Dwyer a bribe, and that he was truthful in Dwyer's 1986 trial when he testified to bribing Dwyer, and testified that Dwyer accepted his bribe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanzsd (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)