Talk:Ken McElroy

Link to Petition

I have added a link to the petition that was filed on July 9, 1984. I have uploaded it temporarily to my webserver, I will be happy to upload it here if anyone sees the need. Dpalme (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

== Editing Conflict ==

There was an editing conflict and much of the sourced material I posted got trashed. I put it back. The sources for this are the Court TV page and the In Broad Daylight book. Somebody in between my initial edit put in a bunch of stuff that I think came from the movie. You can't used "based on a true story" as a source! Americasroof 00:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

rewrite

This page reads terribly, has no continuity whatsoever and does not reference any sources. It needs a complete rewrite. --Tainter 05:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"That murder generated headlines around the world because her unborn baby was ripped out of her womb (the baby, named Victoria Jo Stinnett, is still living, however, at about three years old, and with her father, Zeb)." This definitely needs to be rewritten. Do they mean that the baby was ripped out of her stomach by her killer but somehow survived? I'm guessing it means she was surgically removed by a medical professional, but that's not at all what it reads as. Aljo (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the murderer of the woman cut her open and "took" the baby out, and then kidnapped the baby. It was definitely not done by a medical professional.

Fair use rationale for Image:Skidmore-daylight-dvd.jpg

Image:Skidmore-daylight-dvd.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) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skidmore-daylight.jpg

Image:Skidmore-daylight.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) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skidmore-mercy.jpg

Image:Skidmore-mercy.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) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the American Criminal Category

He was never convicted of anything. He doesn't fit into the small group of bad-guys who get into the category by this exception:

"Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed." David in DC (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My argument above is too broad. This is more accurate: His conviction was not final. He was out on appeal where his guilt WAS disputed, so he doesn't fit the narrow exception quoted above. David in DC (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Killing vs. Murder

The killing of McElroy was a killing, not a murder. Murder is an unjustified act of killing. The killing of McElroy seems to have been warranted. Presumably this point is to some extent controversial, but that also counts in favor of using the neutral 'kill' and its cognates as opposed to 'murder.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.42.136 (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I would call it killing. I know this is off-topic but I'm surprised he wasn't done in much sooner. I certainly can't imagine myself alone putting up with that sort of nonsense for 2 decades, let alone a town of 500 people, truly pathetic of the townspeople, but more so the completely inept and useless police force there. I'd have shot him much sooner personally! And I'm a tolerant person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.203.145 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A killing (homicide is the legally correct term) is only a murder if and when a competent court rules that it is. Roger (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would argue from a legal perspective it qualifies as an extrajudicial killing. Perhaps illegal, but with everything that piece of human filth did, COMPLETELY justifiable CanadianPrince (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent Debate on here

I am not sure I want to even get involved in this matter, but since I am very familiar with the Skidmore area, I hunt just outside of Skidmore every fall and know the area and people fairly well, I will opine briefly. By default, Grand Jury testimony is sealed, so asking for that as a citation is a little over the top. I will not argue about the requirements of Wiki and citations, although I will say that I believe the rules are not applied in a consistent manner - that could be because the editors have not covered all the documents (and we know how large a task that would be), or it could be due to people not understanding the requirements, or just not caring (both posters and editors). Citing the grand jury testimony is not feasible here, although I will point out that there is absolutely no question regarding the identification of <redacted until sourced in article> as the shooter by Trena McElroy. That has ben well documented and not just in the book. There was a lawsuit that she filed against the county, the city and <redacted>.

As for the other individual that supposedly identified the shooter, that is also in the police report; however, those records are not posted online for anyone to reference. Although I will agree that he retracted that statement the following day.

Now as for the author, I know him well - I know that some people think he is doing nothing more than promoting his book, which is what authors do, so I will not attack Harry for that. Books are cited all the time, including all over wikipedia - so I am a little unsure as to why this one seems to have been singled out. I will leave that for others to argue about. Just throwing out my two cents worth here.

I would suggest that everyone take a step back and not get into this tit for tat argument here. We all want the same thing, at least I hope we do - which is to improve the content of the articles.

If I can be of any assistance here, I am willing to help where needed.

I modified the auto signature because for some reason it did not pick up my name.

Dpalme (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All that information is fine. It just needs to be sourced. with all this information it should certainly be possible to source it by a reputable NEWS article and to draft it in a NPOV way. not using non NPOV wording like "despite the fact" or other comments to forward the editors point of view. Im not saying exclude the facts just source it. There is a big difference between adding a CN tag for a non controversial statement and one where you are basically naming names of someone as a murderer or at least making that suggestion. If the grand jury testimony was sealed.. how do we know what was said in it without the people disclosing it committing a felony. Just take 5 minutes and source what you add rather then expect other editors to take your word for it because it appeared in a novel designed to make money.

My issues with the author in question are the fact he created 2 accounts here...To my recollection, One with his name, after people called him out he created another one with a pseudonym, likely so people would not notice in the edit histories and question him. and the accounts were ONLY for the purpose of advertising his books to as many articles as possible...no other editing whatsoever. Its unethical and more importantly against wikipedia policy as wikipedia is not an advertising medium. He also stated he lived in skidmore.. when the fact is he told a reporter he lived OUTSIDE of skidmore. He also claimed the DA gave him information when in fact the DA releases it to EVERYONE not just him personally. That to me appears to show he has a tendency to sensationalize and exaggerate facts to sell books.. An appropriate source would be a major news publication not someone trying to make profit off this. So its simple really.. dont accuse someone of something without sourcing it. And make sure you mention all the facts not just a slanted view. Id personally like to see the 3,000 settlement that he made on here.. just source it and write it NPOV. -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of my comments were simply to offer some help and mahybe the perspective of someone not directly involved in this "debate". As for where the author lived, that farm is like 1 mile from the "city limits" but their address, the same as McElroy's were Skidmore. You ask anyone living around Skidmore where they live and they will tell you the same thing "Skidmore". I live in springfield, IL - I have a Springfield, IL address; but technically I live outside the city limits. I believe that is really nitpicking there and it seems as least to me that you have either a grudge or axe to grind here. So, in order to avoid putting myself in the middle of this (which is exactly what I said I did not want to do) I am going to just step back and stay out of it.

I have a few other articles that frankly are more important than this one.

Dpalme (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thats cool doug. I do appreciate your input. I do not have an axe to grind, I just like to keep the articles well sourced and accurate and free from advertising/advertisers. Now you really should have mentioned you had an interest in this article as well. I find your images in the article "Skidmore Images and details on McElroy Killing" YOU added to be very informative and set out the location nicely. I understand you sell your photographs but since you do not directly solicit on per image (shopping cart) basis from the page, as I don't think there is a huge demand for images from skidmore I personally have no problem with it staying in this limited case. Im assuming you are authorizing us to link your photos?

That said.. you really should disclose you have material in the article as well, therefore an interest in the article more then an editor. Although you claim to be "just joining the discussion as someone not involved in the tit for tat debate". I find it interesting the other anon IP (the one continuosly placing the unsourced information back) in this matter is located in Springfield IL as well. I do not think that is a coincidence. America is a big place and the odds both of you happen to have an interest in this topic and both are from springfield is astronomical. In the future when you link your images from an article (from you IP addresses or your account), be sure to add that you are the photographer and are linking to your site in the notes to allow other editors on that article to make a decision wether its a conflict of interest / advertising or not.

IF I do find you (or you two) are editing in tandem or further vandalism to the page by repeatedly adding unsourced info, or claiming to be disinterested parties while editing together or your adding links to you works to other pages without disclosing your affiliation, your account(s) may be blocked from editing. as for your other more important articles.. I noticed you edit only one other.. Valmeyer, Illinois ‎. Just a friendly warning.. I get it.. trust me -Tracer9999 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

1981 murder

This section could use a rewriting. It reads as if someone was speaking it ("word got to" etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draeath (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Source #11 no longer available

It looks like the reference has been deleted or moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.200.33 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Killing the dog and burning down the house - twice?

Under "Early life" it says he burned down Trena's parents' house and killed the family dog before the parents relented and agreed to let him marry their daughter. A bit later it says that when Trena had had the child, she and his former wife Alice escaped to Trena's parents' house, and that he then burned it down and killed tha family dog. It is very confusing. Is it either-or or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.211.201.66 (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Are YouTube videos notable enough for inclusion in a popular culture section? Anyone can make a YouTube video.

• The case was featured in an episode of web series BuzzFeed Unsolved.
• The case was covered by YouTuber Count Dankula in The Town That Murdered Their Bully, on 12 April 2021 on YouTube.
• The case was covered by YouTuber MrBallen in the episode Top 3 stories that sound fake but are 100% real | part 13, on June 10th, 2021 on YouTube.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironmatic1 (talk • contribs) 21:23, February 9, 2022 (UTC)

@Ironmatic1: No, unless they are. The medium or delivery method doesn't matter as to whether it's an WP:RS but those aren't. I don't know how I missed most of those before. I must have been numbed by the story itself. Don't forget to sign your posts. — Smuckola(talk) 05:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Bail conditions

I am surprised that brandishing a rifle was not a violation of his bail conditions, one for which the sheriff could easily have jailed him again. Mere possession of firearms is often prohibited to people on bail. Does the literature on this case mention anything about his bail conditions?Bill (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)