Talk:Murder of Sherri Rasmussen/Archive 1

Archive 1

rename

I would suggest strongly that this be moved to Murder of Sherri Rasmussen. The former Det. Lazarus is only notable for this crime; the killing and investigation is what's notable here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this page should be moved and rewritten to focus on the crime, not the perpetrator. Robofish (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do now. Thanks. Seems to be no argument from page creator, who doesn't edit much anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Change in prison location

The article states the wrong prison for Stephanie Lazarus. I met her just two days ago at the California Institution for Women in Corona, but I realize that changing the prison name would amount to an improper edit since the change would be based on personal knowledge. The information can be verified through a search of http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov, but I don't know how to cite that site either. So I thought I'd try out the talk page. (My apologies if I have done so improperly.) 70.211.133.179 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Phil

This checks out. I will change the article appropriately (that was based on something reported in one of the articles I used as as a source) Thanks for doing things the right way! Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Interesting note—per the article on the California Institution for Women, it's actually in Chino (Corona is just its mailing address). Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Case, Thanks for updating the page. I'm glad the way I approached the issue was "the right way." Oh, and regarding the prison's location, it may be in Chino and have a Corona mailing address, but that's not the end of matters. It's on Chino-Corona Road. 70.197.78.195 (talk) Phil — Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, it's still wrong. The article identifies the incorrect prison later.70.211.130.153 (talk)Phil — Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fixed now, too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Original research

All those references to this site are simply Original research and serve solely to beef up this article with stuff that was never reported by independent sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile:Hmm? I don't even think you've got the tag right. Citing material reported by other sources isn't OR; you can say you think it's not reliable information, but it isn't OR.

This poor understanding of policy on your part does not encourage me to take your argument seriously even if you had properly identified the perceived violation. While BLPPRIMARY says we can't use certain public records, including some court documents, as sources for details about a living person such as their birthdate, home address, whatsoever, there has been some discussion about how absolutely that policy should be construed. I would adduce two arguments as to why it's perfectly fine to use the California appellate decision as a source for facts about this case:

• First, the article is about an event, not a person. The court decision is not reporting any facts about Ms. Lazarus personally; this article is not a biography of her.
• Second, this is an appellate decision. Lazarus had been convicted of the murder by that point; it is a matter of established judicial fact and our treatment of that as a fact is beyond dispute since a trier of fact found that it was.

  And this means that, in order for the California Courts of Appeal to hear the case, both Lazarus and the state had to agree on the facts in the record for the court to consider (Appeals courts can hear claims of a factual dispute, but the bar for even getting to make the argument that the lower court got it wrong is very high). There was no indication in the appellate brief that Lazarus challenged any of the trial court's finding of facts (Of course, I'm sure she disagreed greatly—and probably still does—with the jury's verdict). The appellate decision, the product of a trial to which both sides contributed evidence and made arguments as to what should and shouldn't be put in front of the jury, a product which was then further augmented by briefs and arguments before the appeals court, leading to a decision which three judges had to sign off on, certainly IMO meets our standards for oversight and reliability. Much more than an affidavit submitted in a lawsuit settled or dismissed long before trial would.

Put it this way: the state of California relied on the appellate decision to decide whether Lazarus has a decent shot at getting out of jail in her lifetime or not. If that's not reliability, I don't know what is. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)