Talk:Michael Welner/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Fees Section

Just a note here that I will be working on this section and put forward a draft after there is consensus on the media and lecture section. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) - do we have to do this fee thing again? It seems as though this has been the area of the BLP that has been clearly debated for the longest time and is clearly unneccessary, even if only because of its contentiousness and its seeming POV. However, if you feel that you can be neutral and not have a clear point of view in drafting a paragraph that would include references from both sides of the argument, I know I am interested to read it and debate it for consensus as we have each other proposal. Please keep in mind all Wiki Policy when writing this paragraph and I do hope that Fladrif (talk) holds you to the same Wiki standards as she has other editors on this page. I would particularly note to keep in mind the following policies - WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:NEWSBLOG, and WP:BURDEN. Empirical9 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Empirical. You are correct that it would need to be neutral and by consensus. I don't think we'll have any problems with it now that we work together. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when this aspect of Mr.Grantevans2 agenda would return. I disagree with Empirical9 in that I think this topic has a clear POV and is wrought with third party opinion/commentary. In line with all of the arguments raised re: promotional content, I do not see how this content can be represented in such a way that it overcomes being seen as antonymous to promotional content. I am sure this topic will lend itself to more discussion once the media content is resolved.Stewaj7 (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, and take a hard look in the mirror, before you again accuse another editor of having an agenda. It is clear that multiple independent reliable secondary sources have reported that Welner's fees have been highly controversial and become political issues beyond the trials themselves. How we treat that in this BLP is a question for discussion, but holding to the principle that we accurately and neutrally report what independent sources say is not an "agenda" - it is Wikipedia policy. Perhaps if you and Empirical9 tried editing something other than Welner's BLP, using something as sources other than his website and press releases, you'd have a better grasp of how Wikipedia works and how to conduct yourself here. Fladrif (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, what exactly is the problem here Fladrif (talk)? Your colleague is attempting to come back to an issue that has been the most controversial aspect of this BLP and was in fact one of the reasons this whole editing issue began. You have recently proven yourself to have quite the POV but you hide behind Wiki policy, even when you misuse it, which you have and I myself have called you out on that on this page. Noone here began accusations, I myself am assuming good faith with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) and asking him to keep in mind all Wiki policy, in particular certain rules so that this issue will not be the down fall of this entire page, AGAIN. Watch your personal point of view and maintain your neutrality. That would help us all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) was not threatened by my comments and did not come back at me threatening as you do now and unless you are merely a sock puppet of his account, I do not understand your interest in any comments to him. Nothing has even been put forth on this topic, although its quite clear what your POV is from your above statement. Empirical9 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Empirical, The way I read the above is that Fladrif is responding not to your comment but to Stewaj7's. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Fladrif was threatening Stewaj, but also had to throw me in there, just to maintain her usual ways - a response was necessary. Empirical9 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fladrif: Thank you for the link here WP:AGF and the prompt to look in the mirror. After doing both, I am still convinced that MrGrantevans2 has an agenda by continuing to press the fee's issue. I am not sure where you received your information that Welner's fees have been "highly controversial". Even the references that Mr.Grantevans2 provided in his earlier work (3 original and then 3 copies of the same article reprinted, which were cited 3 separate times) are not supportive of your assertion. Come now...there is an element of blowing smoke here. You have been diligent to give a careful eye to the references and content going back and forth. I hope you will do the same when we get to this section rather than assuming that Welners fees are "highly controversial". But I digress, If all (including myself) would let us complete the above before creating side issues, I think it would be beneficial to all.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not only the comparatively extreme amounts of his fees being covered in RS articles, its also that most of his fees are coming from public funds, taxpayers' money, that the articles say have many officials commenting on the issue. "Highly controversial" is pretty much an understatement when describing the allegations made in the articles about the alleged direct connection between the money and the content of the testimonies. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets tackle this issue when all else is done so we don't get bogged down at this juncture. Lawblogger18 (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The above deserves a response:

• Its not only the comparatively extreme amounts

Compared to what? All testimony is that Welner billed hourly, and was asked to perform services by the attorneys he consulted to. How is that different, comparatively, from other colleagues? How do his fees for his services compare to other colleagues?

• of his fees being covered in RS articles, its also that most of his fees are coming from public funds, taxpayers' money,

So do the fees to defend the people in which cases he has worked (i.e. costs or fees of their defense). Mr.Grantevans2 you seem to be criticizing Welner for performing a public service, which public officials praise him for.

• that the articles say have many officials

What many officials? An official who is a disgruntled political opponent (Conrad) who is no longer an official and wants to be. The comments do not originate from those whom he consulted to or anybody not politicking.

• commenting on the issue. "Highly controversial" is pretty much an understatement

I understand that you are coming to Fladrifs defense, but I think your support of this synthesized language/accusation is concerning, particularly when our agenda is neutrality. This claim is unsupported and represents nothing more than the preconceived opinions of the individuals who assert it.

• when describing the allegations made in the articles about the alleged direct connection between the money and the content of the testimonies.

Please listen to what you are saying. “Alleged direct connection”. Really! Quite oxymorninic, yes? The above reflects nothing more than independent research.Stewaj7 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fees Draft

Rather than start off with something myself, perhaps others, including Empirical9 and Stewaj7, could have a look below at what was previously in the BLP and say what should be excluded and why. I feel it is all notable enough for includsion and that it is written in a neutral way. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Welner has encountered some attention for his fees, which have been termed "jaw dropping"(e.g. $242,996.74 for his work on the second Andrea Yates trial and $400,000. for his competency report on the Eliazabeth Smart kidnapper) as well as some criticism about his level of objectivity. His competency reports and testimony have been described by some as "advocacy, not an objective evaluation of facts." . However, U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, part of the prosecution team that retained Welner on the Mitchell case, referred to his testimony as "worth every penny".Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, commented on Welner's opinions in the Khadr case stating, "I’ve rarely heard anything so over the top and outrageous. Clearly, this is a psychiatrist who has some strong ideological views". With regard to Welner's fees in another case, W. Christopher Conrad, a former homicide prosecutor said: "I don't think it's appropriate, I don't think it's needed. I don't think it's a good use of taxpayers' money." On the other hand, Honolulu Deputy Prosecutor Kevin Takata said that Welner's expertise and abilities are valuable, "I can tell you that Dr. Welner is the best on the stand I've ever seen," said Takata, the prosecutor who convicted Xerox employee Byran Uyesugi. Welner insists he is not a prosecutor's "expert for hire". He said he has also worked with defense attorneys. "I've consulted on criminal cases fairly equally," Welner said. Defence attorney William H. Difenderfer questioned Welner's credentials, pointing out that his curriculum vitae lists 137 publications since 1993 and all but 23 of them are found in Welner's own online publications. He also accuses welner of acting "more like a detective building a case than a psychiatrist evaluating a patient." Welner replied that thinking like a detective is in accordance with his training, and with regards to criticism that his publications have mainly appeared in his own journals, Welner acknowledges liking greater control over the editorial process of articles about his work. In the six murder trials in which Welner testified where insanity or mental infirmity were defences, the prosecution has always won.

This has been discussed before ad nauseum. Mr.grantevans2, please refer to the previous discussion on this topic, it is extensive. Rather than starting over with this issue, ignoring months of back and forth I have included references that help recap [1][2][3].Stewaj7 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Stewaj7 here - MrGrantevans2: I thought you were actually drafting a neutral approach to this section? What happened? Please actually re-draft a section like we all have done moving forward in this BLP as opposed to just saying 'oh tell me what's wrong here'. Like Stewaj7 said, you know what the issues are, they have been discussed at severe length, by multiple editors. If this is what your plan was all along, then why even bring this topic up? Just to slow things down? Empirical9 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am just trying to find some consensus on which aspects to cover. Perhaps its easier if I number them in an itemized fashion and we can see which ones are not acceptable. Once we narrow down the agreed upon subject matter, then I will write something just on those subjects. Right now I'll agree to exclude the challenges to Welner's credentials that one attorney made. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• 1: Welner's fees for the 2nd. Andrea Yates case; Headline Houston Chronicle article specifically about his fees.

Include? If not,whynot:

• 2: Headline Pittsburg Tribune article about his fees not being good use of taxpayers' money

Include? If not,whynot:

• 3: 3 articles about 3 different trials claiming Welner's testimony was paid for advocacy and not objective evaluation.

Include? If not,whynot:

• 4: Khadr trial where many headlines quoted Welner's testimony and some called his testimony "ideological".

Include? If not,whynot:

• I will not address these because again, if you want to propose a section, it is your job to draft one. Please see WP:BLPSTYLE to note giving undue proportion to a particular viewpoint on a BLP. What you are essentially doing here, Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) is asking us to draft this section for you so that it is not controversial and not POV, which is what it no doubt will be if coming from your words. One point I will make is that if you are in fact, at some point planning on actually drafting a fee section, which is completely unnecessary and ridiculous for the purposes of a BLP and is clearly meant for the purposes of slowing the progress of this page down and creating unnecessary contention, then any references to Dr. Welner's 'testimony' do not fit and make no sense in that paragraph. You cannot find all of the quotes against a person and create a section that seeks to make them look bad - which is quite clearly the essence of what you are doing. That would be like me taking all of the users writings on your talk page and creating a page all about you. Empirical9 (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me try this another way. Does anyone else think anything at all should go into the BLP from the articles about Welner's fees? If not, then I'll drop it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have offered an extensive response[4] challenging the merit of the fees section proposed by Mr.Grantevans2. I think we can do better than including content that sounds, smells and reads like gossip. In fact, our combined efforts to improve this BLP, which is now both neutral and richly informative, I think would be for not where we to include the fees content that has been proposed.Stewaj7 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, lets leave the fees out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Great Work

I think the resulting BLP is quite an amazing product of consensus and effort among all who helped out. Lawblogger,imo, did a really wonderful job and put out enormous effort and so did the rest of you. Its really kind of cool, I think, that we all managed to hang in and get this done...its a truly extraordinary result, I think, and I want to extend my personal best wishes to all of you. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

New Edits

Please discuss all new edits to this page here first. This is an open forum; therefore, to ensure we are all acting in good faith, transparency is encouraged.Stewaj7 (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to your comment: Greetings Jcally66. First of all welcome to the wiki editing community. As one of the editors, I want to be sure you have access to the resources you need to navigate the wiki waters as well as uphold wiki etiquette WP:ETIQ.

You have made an edit to Michael Welner page, which has had some issues with bad faith editing. That said, the editing community has established using WP:TALKPAGE or the discussion page before making edits so that the community agrees. Because your first post violates WP:NPOV about peer review and WP:ORIGINAL in that the actual article says nothing about peer review being controversial, nor that is does not adhere to ethical standards, or that the judge equates it to "co-authorship". It has been removed. That said, your contributions are welcome and we ask that you first use the discussion page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner, particularly as you are a new editor, to be sure we are all editing in good faith.Stewaj7 (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your courteous reply Stewaj7. I appreciate your patience with a new editor. That said, I'm unsure where the issues of bad faith derive. There have been multiple discussions of the unorthodox nature of The Forensic Panel's practice of "peer review" in the past, including this talk panel. Dr. Welner himself refers to it as "innovative" and superior to "traditional peer-review". (Would other media references be helpful here?) The Conner ruling represents a clear and definitive legal conclusion of the Panel's practices. Although "peer review" is not explicitly mentioned in the article, the description of events that led to their report's exclusion from the court's decision are clearly contrary to the intent and the philosophy of peer review. This can even be seen in the Wiki definitions of peer review already referenced in the Welner BLP. Further, the court's determination that the The Forensic Panel methods are better described as "co-authorship" is quoted directly from the court's official decision. I actually have a PDF copy of the unpublished decision (US vs. Brian Richardson, case number 1:08-cr-139-cc-cch, (N.D. Ga. April 10, 2012)), however, I understand that original legal documents can not be referenced due to the rules here (which I don't really understand.)
• That said, I was in attendance for Dr. Welner's testimony during the Brian Mitchell trial in Salt Lake City in 2010 (in person) and his description of his peer review practices was a key topic of his cross-examination. Since I have authored several peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals and have been a peer-reviewer many times myself I was particularly struck by Dr. Welner's testimony. As he described, The Forensic Panel's practice of using experts in their own employ to review a report is a complete inversion of the intent of independent peer-review and would be considered unethical by anyone familiar with the rules of peer-reviewed scientific or medical publications. The testimony by the members of the Panel in the Richardson case is even more revealing - the doctor appointed by the court testified that he had consulted two other members of the The Forensic Panel before even interviewing the defendant. He also testified that he had changed his original diagnosis after discussions with Dr. Trestman. This was found to be in violation of court orders specifically because the The Forensic Panel's practices were defined of "co-authorship" rather than "peer review".

Quoting from pg. 17-19 of the court's ruling:

• The Court was led to believe that there would be a report initially drafted by Dr. Morgan that would be free of input and influence by anyone else. This was not so. Prior to Dr. Morgan writing even the initial draft of the Expert Report, Drs. Morgan, Trestman, and Marcopulos discussed the nature of Dr. Morgan’s experience interviewing Mr. Richardson, reviewed the results of the different structured assessments, brainstormed what the results meant in light of Mr. Richardson’s current presentation and previous records, considered various diagnostic possibilities, and analyzed the interpretation of the results and preliminary conclusions that Dr. Morgan was proposing. Significantly, after receiving feedback from and being “challenged” by Dr. Trestman,
• (Tr. of Evid. Hr’g, 52, March 23, 2012), Dr. Morgan changed his initial opinion that Mr. Richardson suffered from schizophrenia to an opinion that he suffered from antisocial personality disorder. While Dr. Morgan attempted to minimize the role of the peer reviewers and the impact that Dr. Trestman’s feedback had on his ultimate conclusions, Dr. Trestman credibly characterized this modification as being a substantial modification. The fact that there is this debate regarding the impact of Dr. Trestman’s feedback magnifies the need for an independently-drafted initial report.
• Dr. Trestman testified that the peer-review process employed by The Forensic Panel is akin to the process used to prepare a joint paper co-authored by more than one individual. (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g, 13, March 23, 2012.) Dr. Trestman subsequently testified that the Expert Report was Dr. Morgan’s and that he just “helped to contribute,” (id. at 28), but the totality of the evidence establishes that the Expert Report is akin to a joint paper with Dr. Morgan being the lead author. In fact, although Dr. Marcopulos repeatedly testified that the Expert Report was Dr. Morgan’s and that Dr. Morgan had the freedom to accept or reject recommendations from the peer reviewers, she also referred to Dr. Morgan as the “primary author.” (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g, 89, March 26, 2012). This testimony suggests that she and Dr. Trestman were somewhat akin to secondary authors. Regardless of whether the Expert Report is fairly characterized as a joint report, however, there is no dispute that Dr. Morgan consulted with Drs. Trestman and Marcopulos before preparing the first draft of the Expert Report. Consequently, there is no version of the Expert Report that unequivocally reflects Dr. Morgan's findings, opinions, and conclusions alone.'

• Given all of this evidence, I believe that The Forensic Panel section of the Michael Welner BLP should at least mention that its definition of peer review is controversial (to say the least).
• I'm open to all suggestions as to how to go about making this addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcally66 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Jcally66 I can appreciate the points above; however, your conclusions are consistent with original research WP:ORIGINAL. If you can not cite the opinion or a source where the forensic peer review has been found to be controversial, the conclusions that you reach are your opinion based on your understanding of peer review. There was another incident like this involving US. vs Brian David Mitchell, for which the subject of the BLP was involved, were peer review was cited as reflecting "best practices" in forensic consultation. However, this information is left out because 1. the opinion in which the judge can be quoted was not foot-notable and 2. because summizing that the source in an of itself validated peer review equates to conjecture or opinion. In adherence to WP:LIVE such statements, that can be unduly controversial and unsubstantiated should be minimized in biographies of living persons.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Stewaj7, my conclusions about The Forensic Panel's definitions about peer review aren't based on my opinions, they are based on the accepted definition of the term. As for other references that call the subject’s definition of peer review controversial, there’s obviously the Yates trial as the subject’s description of peer review was specifically cited by the jurors as a reason for their “not guilty” verdict. http://www.chron.com/news/casey/article/Second-Yates-expert-paid-242-966-74-1511591.php “it really compromised his integrity.” In the Mitchell trial, the subject himself testified that Panel members were involved in the entire evaluation process. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50836447-76/mitchell-welner-lake-salt.html.csp http://breaking.sltrib.com/mitchell/dec8wellnertranscript.php From the transcript:

Lewis: The (sic) were involved in the entire evaluation process?

Welner: Yes.

Also, in the Mitchell trial, the central point of the subject’s cross-examination concerning peer review was not over-involvement of the Panel’s members, rather that their contribution to the report was not reflective of any expertise. The notes by the Panel doctors were shown to be not “substantive” and amounted to mere “proof-reading” of a report that was prepared by the subject himself.

I understand the desire to avoid controversial topics in a subject’s BLP, however in this case the controversial statement is that The Forensic Panel has innovated a new form of “peer-review”. But failing to rebut with a statement that this is not an accepted definition of the term seems to be the “bad faith” argument. Here are wikis on various types of peer review: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Peer_review http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Clinical_peer_review#Physician_Peer_Review http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Medical_peer_review If you can find one that describes a type of peer review where the reviewer is paid by the subject and evaluates the subject before or during their initial diagnosis or conclusions, I’ll concede your point. Peer review is necessarily “post hoc”, analogous to a teacher grading a student's exam or paper. If a professional adds input to an associate’s work before an initial conclusion is made, they can be called “advisors”, “consultants”, “proof-readers” or “editors”, but no case “peer reviewers”.--Jcally66 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Also with respect to "co-authorship", I did not see the referenced judge's statement that he disqualified the experts on the basis of peer review or that it was more like "co-authorship". Please advise? Secondly, the article states that the peer review was misrepresented by the prosecution, and that by having peer review one side had an unfair advantage. How is this controversial? Particularly as it is akin to clinical peer review http://www.clinicaladvisor.com/incorporating-the-peer-review-process-in-primary-care-settings/article/219418/ which has been found to enhance practice?Stewaj7 (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Stewaj7, I’m not sure where your confusion comes from here, it's the entire basis of the ruling. The judge did not rule to throw out the prosecutions report because the defense side was deprived of “peer review”. He made his ruling because the prosecution’s “peer reviewers” were not acting as peer reviewers (is there a way to attach the entire ruling?). Instead, Judge Conner ruled that they were substantive contributors to the original report on the defendant (thereby violating court orders). I even showed you the part of the ruling with Panel doctor Trestman’s testimony, “Dr. Trestman testified that the peer-review process employed by The Forensic Panel is akin to the process used to prepare a joint paper co-authored by more than one individual. (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g, 13, March 23, 2012.)” It doesn’t seem like it can be any clearer than that. (Do the rules here really exclude all court rulings? Even Supreme Court rulings?)

Finally, your reference to clinical peer review actually supports my point, not yours. It describes an example of blind, post-hoc evaluations of other clinicians’ diagnoses and recommendations. Again, find an example of clinical peer review where the reviewers are involved in the initial diagnosis and I’ll concede.--Jcally66 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Khadr Testimony

Fladrif, you have added a link to an article or site that is no longer available. Additionally, the article that you cite from the globe and mail states "Dr. Welner, a controversial figure who was largely discredited, had testified that Mr. Khadr had “marinated in the radical jihadism” at Guantanamo and posed a danger to Canada. Mr. Toews’ demand for transcripts was seen as the last-gasp delaying tactic." nothing about controversial or discredited. It is the opinion of the author of the article that Welner is a controversial figure who was largely discredited. We will let that journalist deal with the factual accuracy of his opinions. However, no where in the article does it state that Welner's testimony was found to be controversial or discredited. In fact in the same article it is noted that "Canada’s Public Safety Minister Vic Toews asked for the transcript and hours of video interviews of Mr. Khadr by prosecution psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner." It think this speaks to the veracity of Welner's work in this case that it would be requested and reviewed by Towes. The Wall Street Journal also noted that, "One of the factors that led the military jury to issue a 40-year sentence was the testimony of Dr. Michael Welner, an American forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Welner reviewed Khadr's complete file, interviewed prison guards and then sat down with Khadr for an eight-hour conversation, recorded on videotape." . This further supports that courts reliance on Welner's testimony. And the published statement from the minster noted that a review of Welner's report was conducted before making decisions about Khadr's reentry into Canada. . Lastly in a national weekly current affairs magazine there are several sections devoted to Welner's interview and testimony, and it was that authors opinion that "Maclean’s has viewed a complete transcript of Welner’s seven-hour interview—the most candid glimpse yet of the “real” Omar Khadr. For a man whose story has been told so many times by so many other people (journalists, authors, documentary filmmakers, lawyers from all sides), the Welner interview is a public rarity: Khadr in his own words." I think these and other sources provide a sense that both the testimony and work of Welner in this case were not discredited, but rather are being well referenced - even by Canada’s Public Safety Minister. If you would, please review your insertion with the reference you included. I think you will find that it does not adhere to Wikipedia policy and should be removed.Stewaj7 (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your spin on these sources is just that - spin. They do not support your arguments, and do not excuse your removal of well-sourced accurate text, something you have been warned about repeatedly in the past. Asking for the video and transcript says nothing about the controversy surrounding this testimony - if anything, the request could equally indicate that the Minister seriously questioned the veracity of Welner's testimony by insisting on seeing the actual interviews and deciding for himself. He also requested the reports of the Defense witnesses who contradicted Welner's conclusions; by your logic, that means that the Minister affirmed them as reliable and credible as well. The Minister's letter, which is an original source, does not state that he found Welner's testimony persuasive - if anything the conclusion that Canada should accept extradition and was well equipped to deal with the prisoner if he were granted parole and released would seem to indicate that he found it unpersuasive. An opinion piece in the WSJ by Ezra Levant pushing his book is hardly a reliable source, he is simply speculating as to what the military jury's sentencing recommendation was based upon. The McLean's article makes no conclusion as to the credibility of Welner's testimony, and plays it right down the middle. You are in essence trying to original research, twisting myriad sources, to advance a positive PR spin on a very controversial situation to the exclusion of well-sourced text. Fladrif (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Spin? Fladrif, please show me in either of the sources that you cited where Welner is quoted as being controversial or discredited. This seems more like spin, that you would conclude that from the sources you have cited. At least I have provided you clear examples and quotations from the sources. This is not spin.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, do not edit talk page posts after they have been responded to, particularly where the edit is to fundamentally change the post that was responded to. Why would you admit admit that the Globe and Mail article specifically : "Dr. Welner, a controversial figure who was largely discredited, had testified that Mr. Khadr had "marinated in the radical jihadism" at Guantanamo and posed a danger to Canada.", and then redact that admission and post that the article contains no such statement? You have previously been warned about this kind of conduct, and instructed how to use strikeout in talk page posts, so this is inexcusable. Nor is the conclusion of that article unique in any respect, as a number of reliable sources have stated the same thing. [5][6][7], etc.....Fladrif (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

James Knoll Article

I was one of the editors of this BLP a while back. I thought the work product reached a pretty good consensus after a lot of hard work. I don't have too much time to help on this nowadays, but I will help talk thing through when I can.

In the Depravity Scale section, the sentence "Many other psychiatric professionals, however, have questioned the logic of trying to codify a concept as inherently subjective as 'evil'" was added to the first paragraph. I looked through the referenced source, but I don't think one can properly source this statement to this article. Knoll states "Over the past two decades, an explicit emphasis on evil has been developed by several respected social psychologists"; and with that as a backdrop Knoll argues his counter-viewpoint. I make no assessment as to whether his argument is compelling or not, I simply make the point this article not about the viewpoints of many or a census of viewpoints in the community. This is important because the proposed language seems to imply that there is a plurality of opposition to Welner's singularly taken viewpoint. Based on what Knoll says, it would probably be more accurate to presume that social psychologist have taken positions both for and against. I have reversed this comment so we can discuss further here and reach a consensus. Does anyone disagree with that approach? Lawblogger18 (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree this page is the proper forum to discuss this topic. I see that the previous version of the BLP was the product of a lot of discussion, however the original consensus produced a hagiography devoid of any criticism of the subject or subject's works. Given how controversial the work Dr. Welner was and continues to be, I propose that the BLP should more resemble, say Nancy Grace's biography.Nancy Grace A BLP for a media personality that fairly covers the subject's life and work, but also has a section devoted to detailing the controversies the subject has had a role in. --Jcally66 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As for the Depravity Scale, it would be more logical to find Editors who are professional psychologists or psychiatrists get a consensus to describe how members of the field received this work. Lacking those, a citation search would be a good objective measurement of acceptance of the Scale, if someone reading this knows how to do this for journals that specialize in psychiatry. As it is, a search for "Depravity Standard" on Pubmed only turns up Welner, M 2006. --Jcally66 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Also quoted in Knoll paper, "Nevertheless, attempts by behavioral science to define evil as though it were an objective and quantifiable concept are inherently flawed. Since evil is a subjective moral concept with inextricable ties to religious thought, it cannot be measured by psychiatric science. Moreover, there does not appear to be any significant need to define or use the term “evil,” as forensic psychiatry already has working concepts describing deviant behavior that is harmful to others. Testifying about illusory moral concepts may ultimately diminish our credibility as forensic scientists. Further, embracing “evil” as a legitimate psychiatric concept can have a detrimental effect on forensic treatment efforts. The purpose of this article is to argue against the acceptance of the term “evil” into the lexicon and practice of forensic psychiatry." Knoll make a cogent case, and haven't seen any convincing rebuttals to it. If other professionals aren't using the Depravity Scale outside of the Forensic Panel. That would appear to be a consensus that speaks for itself. --Jcally66 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A word of warning: if a plurality of social scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists can be shown to take quantifying "Evil" a serious endeavor, they will be justifying the old joke by those of us in other scientific professions that psychiatry is not actually a "science". --Jcally66 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have also found this link to an editorial that directly addresses Welner's work.--Jcally66 (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The objection to this language is riduculous. Welner's "Depravity Scale" is (i) an ongoing and incomplete reseearch project and (ii) as such, has exactly zero acceptance in the relevant scientific community. 99 44/100% of the coverage about it has been unashamed self-promotion. He has never been permitted to testify about it. To argue that citing relevant, reliable sources, questioning whether the admittedly incomplete and highly controversial concept of Welner's research project make any scientific sense or has any basis whatsoever is unfair or not NPOV is absurd. Fladrif (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose reinserting the original edit, "Many other psychiatric professionals, however, have questioned the logic of trying to codify a concept as inherently subjective as "evil"." and include the Simon paper reference along with the Knoll paper Perhaps Fladrif could follow with another line pointing out that this concept has never been allowed for use in any expert testimony?--Jcally66 (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Selected Cases

The recent changes to the Selected Cases section were extremely poorly sourced and amounted to original research. In addition, the language was so one sided that it would be hard to imagine how it does not violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Bring it down to the talk page (like I did with my recent suggested revision)so we can walk through what works and what doesn't. Lawblogger18 (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Lawblogger18, my apologies for the first version of the edit - I had accidentally saved in the middle of editing. Everything should be properly referenced now, but please let me know of any remaining problems.

I had originally agreed that revisions should be discussed on the talk page first, but Stewaj7 took it upon himself to abuse that agreement and filed an official dispute before we had barely begun discussions. He appeared to be trying to bully me into backing-off. How about we leave the current edits as-is and we can discuss how to improve them here, one case at a time? Please, don't just undo everything. I am open to any critique and will make changes to my own edits myself, especially if we can get more editors involved in the conversation. I am really very open to criticism, there's no reason to start an editing war.

As for biased language, it might appear that way to someone not familiar with Dr. Welner's entire professional career. But, everything cited is well-sourced and, in politically charged cases such as Khadr, I've gone out of my way to include sources both pro and con over the ideological fence. The fact is, Dr. Welner places himself at the center of a lot of high-profile controversial criminal cases, verdicts and sentences often pivot around his (often contrarian) testimony, and most-of-all, in the past years, many of these verdicts have been lost or overturned on appeal due to issues specific to the way Dr. Welner testified in court. (Paraphrasing Steven Colbert, reality has a well-known anti-Welner bias.) These are often death penalty cases, therefore, should not be minimized.

I could've brought up the Panel's extremely excessive fees and the "hired gun" accusations, but I'm not interested, and that seems to be Fladrif"s territory anyway. I could be far more critical of the "Depravity Scale" and his definition of "peer review" from a scientific point-of-view if I chose to... Much could also be made of Welner's politico/religious ideology, but I'm not interested in exploring that. Let's just say, I've been working hard to stay as balanced as I've been so far.

That said, how about we just start on your take on the Yates trial blurb?--Jcally66 (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been preparing for and dealing with the mess left by the Hurricane (I hope everyone remained safe with minimal damage). If we can ice the conversation for a day or two while life gets back to normal, I will read your comments on the talk page and your suggested revisions to the BLP carefully and give you my thoughts.

Just one quick thought , I think we need to decide whether we take the current revisions down and go through the cases one by one (posting them upon reaching a reasonable consensus) or in the alternative keep the recent revisions up, but not expect to reach a consensus before any editor makes their own suggested revisions right on the page (i.e. parallel discussion on the talk page). To unilaterally post an entire section’s worth of re-writes in one shot and then expect editors to reach a consensus on the talk page before altering any part of it when they disagree with language, conclusions, citations, etc. will probably be perceived as inequitable. I am ok with either methodology, but want to hear everyone’s thoughts so there is at least some agreement to approaching the discussion. Lawblogger18 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Lawblogger18, I agree that unilateral additions to the page are not ideal, but talk page "consensus" doesn't seem to be working either. It's unfortunate, but this discussion appears to be attracting the comments of only about 2 editors at a time. I've made a number of editing suggestions here on the talk page, but have yet to get any response from anyone - so I went ahead and made my edits. Again, I think we should leave them up and discuss them one at a time.

To explain my thinking, I made these additions to make the BLP more interesting and informative. The previous bullet points didn't clarify what the subject's role was in each case and didn't make reference the various (and numerous) controversies that arose in each case. For example, the page would be incomplete (I would think) if the reference to the Matthew Shepard murder didn't also mention that the Forensic Panel was the origin of the "gay panic defense". The Free case should mention the conflicting testimony on false confessions. The Cheever case should mention the murder's role inspiring methamphetamine legislation, and that Dr. Welner's testimony was ruled to have violated the defendant's constitutional rights. The Yates, Baumhammers, Free, Cheever, and Mitchell cases should mention what role Dr. Welner's testimony had in the juries' verdicts. And so on.

In my general opinion, the Selected Cases list should only include high profile trials (either as legal precedents or in the media) where Dr. Welner's testimony was central to the verdict, a controversy, or an appeal. This is why I added the Cheever case, and thought the Jayson Williams case should be removed. I also think perhaps the Chris Benoit case is iffy, since Dr. Welner's role was peripheral to that trial's testimony and verdict. Also, the Khadr section is admittedly convoluted, but since this case is a jurisdictional legal mess, I'm not sure how that can be helped. Please let me know your thoughts, and I hope we can get the input of others.--Jcally66 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I had a major problem with the way these cases were listed before, and these edits underscore the problem. First of all, as I noted back when I first came across this article a couple years ago, it is obvious that the cases were "selected" on the basis of them being listed and featured on Welner's Forensic Panel website, rather than based on the cases themselves being notable, and in particular on Welner's involvement in the cases being notable, as reflected in significant, third party independent coverage in secondary sources. A BLP is not supposed to be based on the subject's CV, especially when it is largely puffery and self-serving. On that basis alone, this article should not be even discussing McKinney, Williams, Benoit, Baumhammers or Free. With respect to McKinney, the only person that claims Welner's testimony was consequential is Welner. He had no involvement in the guilt phase of the case (making the Judge's rejection of the "gay panic defense" irrelevant, as it occurred prior to any involvement by Welner in the case), and Welner's sentencing testimony was inconsequential, given that a plea agreement was reached. There is no secondary source given to support Welner's self-serving statements that his testimony was influential in that agreement. In Williams, we have a single newspaper source noting that Welner was retained by the Defense, but he never testified, and there is no basis on which to conclude that there is any notability whatsoever to Welner's involvement. In Benoit, the single third party source listed makes no mention of Welner. Only Welner's self-serving statements on his website, and on something called criminaljusticedegreeschools.com, clearly not a reliable source, says anything about his involvement. In Baumhammers, we have self serving statements by Welner in criminaljusticedegreeschools.com about his involvement, and the only other mention of Welner is in the unsuccessful appeal in which the defense claimed that Welner subsequently contradicted his testimony. Free is a notable case, but for reasons entirely unrelated to Welner's testimony, and using that to bootstrap this into discussion here. No secondary source treats Welner's testimony as notable in this case.

Based on that, I'm removing them entirely until someone can actually source them properly and show that significant independent third party secondary sources treat his involvement in these cases as notable.

I don't have time to deal with the rest of this now. Maybe I'll weigh in later. Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif, I agree with your points regarding Williams and Benoit, but I vehemently disagree with removing McKinney, Baumhammers, and Free especially with regard to lack of sourcing. In the most obvious case, Baumhammers, I'm mystified by your comments. In the multiple references to the on-going appeal to Baumhammer's death penalty sentence and stay-of-execution, the entire basis for defense attorney Caroline Roberto's case is centered on problems with Dr. Welner's testimony. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/baumhammers-seeking-new-trial-314467/?print=1 http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/baumhammers-appeal-centers-on-psychiatrist/nDrXb/ This is a high profile case where Dr. Welner's testimony was central to a death sentence. The case has also been cited as contributing to the debate to end the death penalty in Pennsylvania. http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/09/13/time-to-get-rid-of-death-penalty-in-pa/ This would certainly not be a case to be included in Welner's CV. Unless you something to add, I'm reinstating this case.--Jcally66 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In Free, again the references clearly show that Dr. Welner's testimony was central the verdict in this high profile case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1247261.html The case was entirely based on Free's confession. Dr. Kassin, a leading published authority on false confessions, for the defense, made his case that Free's confession was coerced and should be thrown out. Welner's expert testimony was central and countered that Kassin's conclusions were not based on enough data therefore were"unscientific". The confession was allowed as evidence in the trial. I should add that more recent published work on false confessions has completely vindicated Kassin against Welner. Given its high profile and legal precedent for false confession, I would reinstate this case.--Jcally66 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In McKinney, it's true that Dr. Welner didn't directly testify in this case, but as stated in the blurb, it was The Forensic Panel that was retained by McKinney for psychiatric consulting, therefore, it was the Panel that originated the "gay panic defense". Welner founded the Panel, and based on testimony in the Richardson case, everything the Panel does is in collaboration, and Welner "collaborates" with every conclusion the Panel reports. Also, given that this defense was thrown out and that the controversy was so high profile (enough for its own wiki page), most people would hardly consider this something that just flatters Welner's CV. Again, this is a high profile case that Welner contributed to - I would reinstate this mention.

Fladrif, I'm not sure where your resistance to mentioning these cases involving Dr. Welner's testimony comes from. You seem to think that they over-estimate Welner's influence and expertise. However, if you look at each item on the list though, the only case where Welner's testimony didn't end up damaging his "side" is the Mitchell trial. Finally, I don't know if you've looked into the Richardson case, but I also suggest this to be added as a separate item in Selected Cases, even though it's already mentioned in the Forensic Panel section.--Jcally66 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding McKinney:

Removed: “Controversy erupted, however, when the Panel suggested to the defense team that McKinney’s extreme homophobia have been triggered by an alleged sexual advance by Shepard. This was famously described in the media as the ”gay panic” defense. Judge Barton R. Voigt rejected this defense in the guilt phase of the trial ruling that it amounted to a diminished capacity or temporary insanity defense, neither of which is allowed under Wyoming law.[17]:

• No Citation you provide indicates that the Panel suggested a defense to McKinney’s lawyer.
• The citations and you both indicate that the “gay panic” defense was brought up and rejected during the guilt phase of the trial and that the Panel was brought in for the sentencing phase. Therefore, it would be impossible for the Panel to suggest the defense. Also, given that the Judge’s ruling happened prior to the Panel’s participation, it is irrelevant here.
• I see no indication to support that Welner participated in this Case.
• The Laramie Project, a website developed by a theater group is not an appropriate source, so I removed the statement it supported.

Lawblogger18, I guess we've decided to continue with unilateral edits. I had continued making suggestions on the talk page, and then waiting 2-3 days to edit if I got no response, but whatever. I guess I have to change my mind and agree that the McKinney case shouldn't even be mentioned on this BLP, since there no good independent record of what the Forensic Panel's advice to the defense team was and there's no record of Dr. Welner's direct involvement at all. I have this quote from Welner in an interview that I'd referneced:

"We were retained in anticipation of sentencing," Dr. Welner recalls, "with a question about which mitigating circumstances might a jury appropriately take into account as they were considering whether to impose the death penalty. That was a good example of a case in which there was a lot of discussion among attorneys and many other expert witnesses who had competing theories for which mitigating information should be presented. Some of the ideas other experts were raising were motivated by a desire to gain notoriety of exposure by testifying in a famous case. A veritable Tower of Babble. The role of The Forensic Panel was to hold those scientific approaches accountable that ultimately would have the greatest relevance, and to give the attorneys confidence in their usefulness."

So on second thought, I guess I'll have to agree with Fladrif regarding McKinney. The McKinney case shouldn't even be mentioned, since the roles for the Panel or Welner can not be independently determined and this quote could just be self-promotion. We don't know the names of the Panel doctors consulted and none of them testified. It is interesting to note that Welner here refers to the work of the Forensic Panel here in the first person - implying that he was directly working with the defense team.

In the next paragraph however, he mentions the Panel's work in the third person:

In their research, they found that McKinney, addicted to methamphetamines and withdrawing from them at the time he encountered Shepard, showed signs of alcohol disinhibition. If Shepard did in fact make a pass, or even if he was only perceived to have done so, it may have triggered McKinney's homophobia. The extreme nature of McKinney's reaction was amplified by this biological and toxicological condition.

::Homophobia often results in cases of violent reaction, and is acknowledged by pathologists as well as suicide experts for extreme destructiveness, particularly among late adolescents.''

Strange that the Panel would bring up the "gay panic" defense again as mitigation in the penalty phase, even though it was thrown out in the guilt phase of trial (almost like they came up with it originally.) I guess that was the source of my confusion. Anyway, yes, McKinney should just be deleted. I'd like to point out, Lawblogger18, that you were part of the editing team that included it in the first place. When Fladrif complains that these cases were just lifted from the The Forensic Panel website, I see his point.--Jcally66 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to come down hard on you. I am just pointing out where an assertion can’t be supported by the source. If you want me to help you look for a source, I am happy to if you just ask. If you have sources that were simply not referenced, that otherwise support the material just let me know.

As for the unilateral editing, I told you that I did not like this approach after you block edited an entire section of the article without posting it at all on the talk page for discussion. I suggested that we have a choice of either taking down your re-write for discussion or accept that the rewritten section would be subject to unilateral editing, you asserted a preference for unilateral editing. As noted in my earlier comments, were you expecting to rewrite the entirety of the section and then simply act as a gatekeeper of consent for all future revisions? If you have a better way to deal with this, please suggest it. I have just been following your lead and preferences so far. Lawblogger18 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Baumhammer

Removed: Defense attorney Caroline M. Roberto filed an appeal noting that Welner, in three media interviews since 2007, was quoted as saying Baumhammers was "schizophrenic," contrary to what he testified to at trial. On February 28, 2010, Allegheny County Judge Jeffrey A. Manning granted Baumhammers an indefinite stay of execution.

• Your Citations do not make mention of Baumghammer's counsel asserting that Welner called Baumhammer a schizophrenic during interviews and as such, this statement is unsourced.
• Even if it was sourced, it is inappropriate and prejudicial to include a defense attorney’s allegations/assertion. These are advocacy statements – not verified facts. As I have noted in the past, attorney’s (both prosecutors and defense attorneys) are not necessarily advocates for the truth.
• In any case, the trial judge gave little weight to these assertions as it took him “barely three minutes to deny Baumhammers’ appeal”

Did you really have to make me search around the internet for the stories that Roberto was referring to? You're being disingenuous here. Baumhammers was not found to be "schizophrenic" in his original trial because the defense presented no expert mental health professional to rebut Dr. Welner's testimony. That was part of her grounds for an appeal. As for verified facts: these weren't just assertions, they were issues in the deliberations of the appeal. A psychiatrist for the defense testified that Baumhammer was schizophrenic. And it's a fact, that in three interviews after the VA Tech shooting, Welner related Baumhammers to Cho as also 'schizophrenic'. Here's the ABC interview , but as you can see in the update at the end, "This story has been updated to clarify the condition suffered by Richard Baumhammers." i.e. the story has been "corrected" to refer to Baumhammers having delusional disorder rather than schizophrenia. ( I don't know how to find a cached version of the original story.) Welner didn't dispute that he "misspoke" in his testimony concerning this. Yes, the judge rule against the appeal, but in his ruling he didn't dispute these statements of fact. Roberto said that she would take the case to the state Supreme Court, but there's no way to know the status of this and, given the stay of execution, it's hard to see the point. Again, the problems revealed by the testimony in this case have opened up a debate whether Pennsylvania should continue using the death penalty.--Jcally66 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel like we are missing each other somehow. I am not asking you to take this case down, based on your assertion that this case opened up a debate whether Pennsylvania should continue using the death penalty; and I put my comments in bullet point so they would be easy to follow. The statement in the section for Baumhammers said: “Caroline M. Roberto filed an appeal noting that Welner, in three media interviews since 2007, was quoted as saying Baumhammers was ‘schizophrenic,’ contrary to what he testified to at trial. On February 28, 2010, Allegheny County Judge Jeffrey A. Manning granted Baumhammers an indefinite stay of execution” . If you read my point, you will see that my issue is that there is no citation supporting the statement that Roberto included this information in her appeal. My second point was that even if it was included, it was of minimal bearing to this case as the Opinion written by the PA Supreme Court did not reference this issue; and therefore it is (i) not significant enough to mention here, and (ii) not verified by any of the sources you provided.

You say above: “Yes, the judge rule against the appeal, but in his ruling he didn't dispute these statements of fact. “ As noted, I don’t see that the opinion referenced them at all - one way or the other. In other words, it does not seem that this assertion by defense counsel had any bearing of weight on the justices. (This is not here nor there, but for clarification there were seven justices on the PA Supreme Court, six of which reviewed this case, and all of which concurred with the holding) .

You state above that Roberto’s assertions were part of the “deliberations of the appeals”. I don’t see this referenced in any source provided. Where did you get this information? Can you point me to the source so I can look at it? Lawblogger18 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lawblogger18, I have the habit of not re-citing references on the talk page that I have already cited in the talk page. I'll make sure to cite them each time I comment. Also, it looks like some of my original reference for Baumhammers have lost in the editing back-and-forth. Please return the edited lines with the info below.

The appeal ruling appears to only mention testimony relevent to the 5th ammendment ruling, though other issue were reported in the public record and have been quoted by Caroline Roberto as the bases for later appeal. Roberto references to Welner contradictory statements:

This was certainly an interesting exchange...

Previously, Dr. Welner testified that Mr. Baumhammers had delusional disorder. He specifically rejected the notion that the man was schizophrenic.

But in articles published online just after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, Dr. Welner said Mr. Baumhammers was schizophrenic.

He repeated the information again in interviews this year -- one which was still on his practice's website this week.

"You agree that is inconsistent with your report?" asked defense attorney Caroline Roberto.

"Yes, ma'am," Dr. Welner answered.

"It's also inconsistent with your trial testimony?"

"Yes, ma'am," he responded.

Later, the doctor continued: "I was mistaken in recalling his diagnosis as schizophrenia. I was wrong."

Whether that admission has any bearing on Mr. Baumhammers, who was condemned to die for his crimes, receiving a new trial and sentencing phase is up to Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey A. Manning.

During a hearing on post-conviction appeals this week, Ms. Roberto is trying to prove that her client's trial counsel was ineffective and that Dr. Welner's testimony was "misleading and unreliable."

At the trial, Dr. Welner, who interviewed Mr. Baumhammers over three separate days for more than a dozen hours, testified that he did not believe the defendant was schizophrenic. Instead, he diagnosed him with delusional disorder, and also as having narcissistic personality disorder and possibly anti-social personality disorder.

He also said the man, who was a lawyer but wasn't practicing, had alcohol dependency and was a malingerer.

During her examination of Dr. Welner on Tuesday, Ms. Roberto repeatedly asked why, then, the physician identified her client as schizophrenic -- specifically in relation to the mass shootings at Virginia Tech. In two of the articles, Dr. Welner was participating in an interview about Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech, and responding to reports that he may have been schizophrenic.

"When you thought of mass shooters and schizophrenia, you thought of Richard Baumhammers and put his name in this article?" she asked.

"I thought of many people," Dr. Welner answered. "Richard Baumhammers was a vivid illustration of a hate crime in a person with a chronic mental illness."

Dr. Welner told Judge Manning, he still believed Mr. Baumhammers was fully aware of his actions on April 28, 2000, and knew right from wrong.

"Have you changed your opinion as to your diagnosis of Richard Baumhammers in 2001?" asked Assistant District Attorney Ron Wabby.

"I have not," Dr. Welner answered.

The testimony of the New York City psychiatrist, a native of Pittsburgh, vacillated between the man's calm and loquacious responses and Ms. Roberto's quick and pointed questions.

Often, Dr. Welner would veer off-point from what was asked. Though Ms. Roberto tried to cut him off, Judge Manning repeatedly stepped in to let the witness finish his answer.

At one point, when Judge Manning ruled against Ms. Roberto during an objection, the scene became heated.

"Oh, your honor," she began, objecting to the ruling. "I take exception ..."

But before she could finish the sentence, Judge Manning sternly repeated, "Oh, your honor?"

He then called an abrupt five-minute recess and summoned the attorney into chambers.

The hearing, which began Monday, has included other tense exchanges between the veteran defense attorney and Judge Manning, who presided over the original Baumhammers trial.

Ms. Roberto told the court on Monday that she believed that her client's attorneys failed him by not calling a mitigation specialist during the penalty phase of the case.

"Again we're off on an endless search for the perfect trial," Judge Manning said.

In another exchange, Ms. Roberto began a statement to the court inferring she had worked on more death-penalty cases than him.

He quickly cut her off, saying that he had participated in 23 death-qualified jury trials. She has done 12.

"Why are you challenging my credibility?" he asked. "It's not on trial here."'

and more here:

Roberto declined comment on the ruling, but said she plans an immediate Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeal.

And the case generating debate in PA about the death penalty itself (link to debate on PA radio): --Jcally66 (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lawblogger18, given the information I've provided above, I would suggest that you propose a couple sentences for the Baumhammers blurb to describe Dr. Welner's testimony in the failed appeal and proposed appeal to the PA Supreme Court.--Jcally66 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/psychiatrist-sticks-with-baumhammers-diagnosis-despite-later-mistakes-314558/#ixzz2BMegvDKU

Roberto made the assertion that Welner referenced Baumhammer as a schizophrenic in interviews over six years after his original testimony (interviews which were not focused on Baumhammer, but rather ones in which Baumhammer was referenced in passing). Roberto’s assertions in the exchange did not allude to Welner lying or acting malfeasantly, but rather whether he had changed his mind since his original testimony. Welner indicated that his recollection of his diagnosis was incorrect during the interview and that he had not changed his mind. In any event, the judge seems to have given no credence to Roberto’s assertions that Welner had changed his mind about his diagnosis, and rejected the appeal “barely within three minutes”

As an aside, Pennsylvania employs the McNaughton Rule for the insanity defense; and therefore a person needs to have not known right from wrong in order for the defense to stand. As such a person may be a schizophrenic or have delusional disorder and be found to have known right from wrong. According to the sources, Welner diagnosed Baumhammer as psychotic and suffering from delusional disorder. Whether he suffered from schizophrenia or other types of psychosis was not central to the ultimate point being litigated – whether he knew right from wrong. Likewise, according to one source I found, three different psychiatrist came to three different diagnosis regarding Baumhammers – only one of which concluded that he was a schizophrenic (http://old.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20000519MentalSide1.asp)

I think you want to include language relating to Welner’s in passing references to Baumhamer to infer that he was lying in his testimony, but the Defense counsel did not make that assertion, the judge did not come to that conclusion and the issue was not central to determining the McNaughton Rule and or the conclusion of whether Baumhammer was legally insane. As such, you want me to make a leap of inference that I am not prepared to make; and is not really appropriate in a BLP.

I also worry that the selected cases section will become a hodgepodge of selectively taken , out of context assertion, whether positive or negative, taken by various counsels to support some greater inference that is not generally supportable in the sources themselves. Lawblogger18 (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to interrupt the 2 person show here, but I think Lawblogger is correct in his objections and suggestions. Honestly there really shouldn't be any kind of personal bias or inference in a BLP. Including statements, sourced or not like "Whether that admission has any bearing" or ""Why are you challenging my credibility?". It does seem like you are trying to skew a certain point of view and clearly just trying to make this about Welner's credibility and not the actual section of "Selected Cases". If this were a wiki page called "Interpretations of Baumhammers and other cases" then I could see the need for that kind of editing. But this is really just a BLP about one person and there shouldn't be a bias one way or the other on it. JCally is keen in offering up an impressive amount of quotes and references, but honestly I think Lawblogger is striving more towards what this should look like. What resonated the most to me was "These are advocacy statements – not verified facts." and I agree with that. --Percival2436 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Percival. You're not interrupting at all, in fact I've been lamenting that the lack of other editors in this discussion. We really could use an actual psychiatrist's input here also, but, oh well. That said, I take exception to the idea that I'm injecting negative bias in the BLP. Yes, I've been objecting to what I see as the censoring of anything controversial about Dr. Welner, but I was also the editor who deleted some of Fladrif's inflammatory comments, such as the reference in Khadr calling Welner "largely discredited".

Again, since Welner's testimony was central to Baumhammners appeal, I suggested that Lawblogger18 propose a "neutral" mention of the appeal. It failed, but it was part of an on-going high profile story, the issues in this case helped spark the debate in Pennsylvania over the death penalty, and likely contributed to Judge Manning's stay order.

I quoted the Baumhammers appeal to confirm statements of fact. Yes, Roberto didn't accuse Welner of lying during cross-examination, she asked if he had changed his opinion about Baumhammers' diagnosis. He didn't deny that he had referred to Baumhammers as schizophrenic - confirmed it and testified that he was "mistaken". This quote also pointed out that The Forensic Panel's web page contained this mistake as well, (ahem). I merely provided relevant facts, I'll leave it up to the reader to evaluate Welner's credibility given those facts. You're forgetting, however, that Roberto appealed this primarily because the original defense team presented no other mental health experts to rebut Welner's testimony. Since Baumhammers mental state was vital to whether or not he should be sentenced to death, Welner's interviews with changing diagnoses, or his inability to remember his own diagnosis make for obvious grounds for appeal. (If I were to relate it to myself - since a lot of my work is in molecular biology, if I had, oh, done a DNA fingerprinting analysis that resulted in someone's death sentence, it would take me a very, very long time to forget that result - particularly if I had to testify to my results in court. Oh, I also posted the "mistaken" result on my webpage, and left it uncorrected for years. <--OK. This is what it looks like when I'm implying that Dr. Welner is lying)

I also quoted this piece about the appeal above because I thought the obvious antagonism between the defense attorney and judge was revealing. This would appear to be reason for Roberto's promise to appeal the case again to the state Supreme Court? It is here that she asserts Welner's testimony was "misleading and unreliable", but again, I didn't quote that in the BLP, only the changing Welner diagnosis - a statement of fact central to understanding the appeal and the resulting controversy. --Jcally66 (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You state that you have a opinion that he was lying, you acknowledge that the sources don’t support that opinion, you want to forward that opinion by making pregnant allusions to it, and then try to shroud it by stating that you want “people to come to their own conclusion”. Any way you cut that, it is severely inappropriate. BLP’s are supposed to be neutral, spin free zones. You can criticize, but those criticisms need to be fair, substantiated and cited to verifiable third parties. This isn’t my take on things – its Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy also bans original research. The ban on original research doesn’t mean you can’t research cases and reference well sourced conclusions. It means you can’t try to advance your own personal conclusions that aren’t set forth in well established, verifiable sources. You are constantly trying to weave in unsupported personal opinions through inference – and that is both wrong and outside of wiki policy. When you have something that is neutral, well sourced and leaves out your personal opinion, I generally work with you. But a desire to advance peripheral viewpoints. which are unsupported by appropriate source - or even worse, weave subtle unsupported inferences to create the allusion of malfeasance, at the cost of a neutral display of the facts is just junk.

Also, It is wrong to try to assert or infer an unsupported personal opinion (i.e. that a subject was lying) or agenda (i.e. anti-death penalty) without disclosing that in conversations with the other editors. I shouldn’t have had to call you on it, but I did appreciate it when you confirmed it – it’s the right thing to do. It’s not perfect, but at least it exposes the issue to a clearer scrutiny and helps us arrive to a better result.

Finally, I don’t see how you can call this a “controversy”. There was no public discussion or coverage of this issue other than a few reports on the approach the defense counsel was taking. A lawyer appealing a case on behalf of his client because he disagrees with the Judge’s conclusions is not a controversy. It is simply a part of the adversarial system. You got to stop using loaded words when describing mundane scenarios simply to poison the well or gather support. Its not fair to your fellow editors.

So, long story short, your answer to the question, "should there be a mention of the Baumhammers appeal is, "no"? And your reasoning is that it's a mundane and obscure fact that presents an unfair bias to the subject of the BLP? OK, maybe other editors will weigh in.

Some other possibly relevant information:

A Google search of the words "baumhammers" and "appeal" produces over 12,000 hits.

A key work search of "baumhammers" "appeal" and "welner" yields 210 hits.

It appears to have been one of the biggest local stories in Pennsylvania in 2011.

In the last reference I can find, Caroline Roberto said she was planning on filing another appeal this month (Nov 2012). She's apparently been busy dealing with the Sandusky trial. (Personal note: she appears to get stuck with extremely unsympathetic clients.)

Perhaps you'll change your mind if the PA supreme court agrees to hear the appeal?

By the way, journalists write news reports in a neutral manner all the time despite having strong unstated personal opinions. They may have access to first-hand observations and other personal experiences but that doesn't disqualify them in their ability to keep to the public record. In fact, it allows them to zero in better on relevant facts for the bigger story.--Jcally66 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We are getting bogged down in this, and I want to move to the next case for now. Let’s do a run on the balance of the cases and save the remainder of this debate for any clean up.

OK, how about Free? I think this case deserve an addendum to point out that all the research on false confessions since this trial refutes everything that Dr. Welner testified about. --Jcally66 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Percival , I also welcome you to the page. Please feel free to pitch in. Don’t be discouraged by the spirited debate. We may disagree on some issues, but its all part of the process in getting to a balanced result and consensus. Lawblogger18 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I get what Lawblogger is saying. He is saying don’t use a backdoor approach to make a point which is impermissible or lacks citations otherwise. That makes sense to me. JCally, you drafted the entirety of the Selected Cases section and where he has disagreed with you, he has laid out his reasoning in a way that seems reasonable to me. Let’s keep going and see how the rest of the section starts shaping up.--Percival2436 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Free

This case is cited often because of the court’s conclusion. I added language to give additional information regarding the background of the case and the court's conclusion. All the phrasing I used is taken directly from the opinion of the appeals court --Percival2436 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I read your changes and JCalleys thoughts above. I need to read the case carefully tonight, and I will provide my comments and thoughts then. Thanks for pitching in. Lawblogger18 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

When I originally started here as an editor, my material referencing directly to court rulings was deleted as violating the Wikipedia rule on original research. It didn't make much sense to me and I never got a clear answer on its permissibility. Either way, the subsection now contains 4 duplicate references to the court ruling which seems confusing and redundant. Since the case came down to a dreaded "war of opposing experts" concerning false confession, it would appear necessary to detail Dr. Kassin's testimony and background to understand the case.

Lawblogger and Percival, your elaborations on the legal details of the Free and Baumhammers case are in my opinion muddying Dr. Welner's role. Since I'm apparently in a discussion with two members of the legal profession, I feel I should remind you that Forensic Psychology is supposed to be a scientific discipline, not a branch of Law. (I have a whole treatise describing how the practice of being a lawyer is in many ways the opposite of the Scientific Method, if you'd like to hear it.) Shouldn't Dr. Welner's testimony be judged primarily as good Science rather than as a legal precedent? --Jcally66 (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have had so far is that your draft of the cases has included out of context references and quotes which are positioned with the intent to advance a viewpoint as opposed to give a balanced snapshot of what actually happened in the case. We have walked through some of these issues on the talk page, and I don’t think it’s necessary to rehash them here. The revisions to the cases are absolutely not there to simply to give the reader an understanding of the precedent value of a particular case – they have been included so that the reader can understand the context of testimony, court holdings , and/or ancillary information – much of which was initially included at your behest, and of which if left unaltered would give the reader a distorted view of what was actually happening in these cases, the testimony being offered, and court’s reaction to it. This is especially important within the context of State vs. Free because, as you noted in your argument to include it within the list, this case is notable in the legal world for its precedent value; and therefore notable to the how testimony on false confession is accepted by courts. Where the verifiable sources commented on the science, I am prone to included it. Where the scientific conclusions are not referenced in any verifiable sources and in reality are composed of an editor’s original research or are inferences, I am prone to omit it. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

Much of the testimony that is referenced in some of the cases we have walked through so far are within specialized hearings; and much like in Free, without an understanding of these contexts the reader will misunderstand the nature of the testimony and misunderstand the positions being taken.

Likewise, this is the case with Free where I believe you misunderstand what the hearing within State v. Free was about and the testimony provided by either expert. Forgive me if I am jumping ahead of myself or am incorrect in my assumption, but you seem to be taking the position that Welner testified that false confessions do not occur. No one in any of these cases ever makes the assertion that false confessions are fictional. The issue in State vs. Free, and the subsequent appeal, arose around the question of whether the subject of Kassin’s testimony (i.e. the “science” around has the predictive powers of his methodology) meets the Frye test. The Frye standard attempts to determine whether expert testimony is based on science established enough that it would not be speculative and prejudicial. In short, the hearing and the appeal were not centered on whether Patrick Free confessed falsely, but rather whether Kassin should be permitted as an expert witness to testify to what he proposed as “scientific”. As such, Welner did not provide any testimony on whether Free confessed falsely or whether false confessions occur.

The Frye court, along with a majority of courts thereafter, paralleled Welner’s conclusion that the Frye Test (and in some areas the Daubert standard) are NOT met for purposes of offering expert testimony in this field. It is important you understand this: State vs. Free has never been overturned. The state of NY for example has, with only an apparent single exception, universally disallowed experts like Kassin from testifying, based on the “science” being offered up and its predictive value. In one 2010 case I stumbled across, Kassin himself is set ablaze by the court to the point of mockery.

This is what Welner is saying – and he is only saying it within the context of the Frye test – that (i) Kassin’s research provides a good explanation of why false confessions occur, but (ii) the science has (as of the date of his testimony) not evolved to the point where it can become a reliable indication that a false confession has occurred to within the Frye standard. It is important that you take the time to reflect what is attributed to the subject of the BLP accurately and not ignore this nuance like you have with respect to some of the other selected cases. He did not testify that false confessions or coerced confessions never happen. He testified that Kassin’s research cannot predict whether a confession results in false information. The concept that a defendant was coerced (i.e. subject to grueling conditions) or fooled into a confession does not mean that a confession is false. This hearing was held to determine whether Kassin’s research or the so called science (in deference to your dislike of the behavioral sciences as soft) had any predictive power to determine whether a confession results on a case by case basis in true or false narrative of events. These cases are NOT about whether coerced confessions may result in false narratives (which everyone I think agrees they can and do). They are about whether a guy like Kassin can determine in any individual case, like Free, whether the information provided from a confession ended up a substantially false narrative of events in that particular case. In simpler terms, the issue was whether Kassin could reliably tell a jury that he knows with accepted certainty that Free’s confession ended up with lies on paper in that particular case. Although the concept of coerced confession as opposed to forced confessions can also have issues under the law, they most often dealt with by the Judge as issues of law as opposed to by experts as issues of facts.

I believe your misunderstanding of what these cases were about and the testimony provided made you manufacture a personal opinion driven undertone. It forces us to go through them and systematically examine whether your edits have basis in any of the verifiable sources. However, at some point we need to get on with the process of getting on with it. Percival’s draft is well sourced and goes straight to the source and quotes the cited court opinion directly. It doesn’t distort the facts or make an advocacy case; and I don’t have any immediate qualms with it. However, I am not sure the last sentence relating to Kassin’s self reflection on his the state of the science is necessary. This BLP is not about Kassin and I see no need to either pump him up or slam him in the discussion of the cases beyond what is necessary to understand the court’s conclusion. However, I note that Kassin has a page on Wikipedia and we should link his name to it in order to give the reader the opportunity to easily get more information on his background. This is standard Wiki protocol to give readers more information on a third party referenced in a BLP.

Below, you asked to include State of Louisiana vs. Damon A. Thibodeaux to “balance Dr. Welner’s role in high profile cases”, and I am ok with that. As noted below, just give us the citations so we can take a look at the case.

With respect to your question on whether editors can reference cases directly: (i) I only joined the discussion after any of your references were deleted, (ii) as you noted at an earlier point in the talk page, I think court opinions may be quoted in a section discussing that very opinion, as is the case with pages discussing supreme court opinions, for example, and (iii) I looked at the references deleted and they were not deleted based on the fact that you cited court cases but rather because it was asserted that the conclusions you reached did not correlate with the sources. I make no judgment on whether that assertion was correct – I am only mentioning to point out that the talk pages do not reflect a deletion based solely on the use of court cases as an impermissible source, but rather the use of such source in a manner which violated a few wiki policies. Lawblogger18 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Lawblogger18, well, that was a long entry. You keep accusing me of holding a biased viewpoint of Dr. Welner, but the above entry appears to mostly be a long takedown of the scientific credentials Dr. Saul Kassin...kassin's "so-called science" and lots of scare quotes around the word science. You should include a reference to the 2010 court case so I can see what you're referring to . Of course, I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist, but I know enough to understand when someone is technically well-credentialed in their profession. Just looking at Pubmed, Kassin has published 23 peer-reviewed journal articles (Real peer-review, not bizarro-world definition of peer-review invented by the Forensic Panel). This includes 11 papers specifically about false confessions. He's even co-authored 3 college textbooks according to his Wikipedia page. He would appear to be a pioneer in the scientific study of false confession. His work has also been nicely confirmed in other papers, such as Hampikian, et al. 2011 This paper is a retrospective on 194 convicted prisoners exonerated by DNA evidence where they found that in 30% of exonerated subjects, false confessions had been obtained. This means that in his testimony in Free, Kassin actually under-estimated the frequency of false confession. Please, stop trying to tell me I don't understand something legally and then mis-represent what the facts of a case are. Yes, I understand that Welner's testimony was not about the possibility and frequency of false confessions. He was pointing out that there is no science that can identify a particular confession as false, referring to Free in this specific case. At this point, I would like you to now look at the Thibodeaux case and tell me exactly what "science" Dr. Welner used to identify that specific confession as false. Because it appears to be identical to what Welner concluded was "unscientific" in the Free case.

I ain't no lawyer, but Kassin's testimony would seem to point to a legal concept I remember hearing about called "reasonable doubt". But I'll let the legal experts hash this out. (After all, Scopes was found guilty in court, but those of us back in the lab still believe in evolution anyway.)--Jcally66 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a lawyer to figure this one out. A source you provide states (with the below being paralleled in other sources):

"During the course of this joint investigation, the parties conducted multiple rounds of DNA and forensic evidence testing of the crime scene and other physical evidence and interviewed numerous fact witnesses. In addition, Mr. Connick consulted with Dr. Michael Welner, a preeminent forensic psychiatrist and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, who has nationally recognized experience in assessing disputed confessions. After a thorough review of the entire case file, including the results of all forensic testing, other information not previously examined, interviewing Mr. Thibodeaux and all pertinent witnesses, Dr. Welner concluded the confession was false. He submitted a 53-page report to the District Attorney detailing the basis of his findings."

Dr. Welner “thoroughly reviewed the entire case file, including the forensic testing”. He had the result of all the new forensic evidence, including the DNA testing/evidence. His conclusions would have been based on these elements as well.

The sources you provided attribute the following quote to Dr. Welner: “I appreciate Mr. Scheck’s, Sheriff Normand’s, and Mr. Connick’s collective aspirations to involve forensic science in a responsible and definitive way”. Notice that he did not reference forensic psychiatry. He was thanking them for involving all forensic science, which, as noted above, played an important part of his review.

Dr. Welner’s statement that “the case illustrates how a suspect’s acute guilty feelings and expression and clearly false statements in questioning can snowball with interrogators who would logically interpret these as signs of criminal responsibility” is a reflective one, not a predictive one. In addition, given the compelling DNA evidence, I would guess that much of the report was explanatory as to how and why the confession happened, as opposed to being dedicated to predicting whether the confession was false. Like lawblogger said above, in Free Dr. Welner never questioned whether false confessions occur, just whether you can always predict them in any individual case. In this case, given the DNA evidence, you could come to a conclusion that the defendant confessed falsely with significant certainty.--Percival2436 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. A forensic psychologist can't tell that particular confession is false just by looking at the confession. If the defendant has been shown be exonerated by a mountain of forensic DNA evidence, then a 53-page psychological evaluation can be written to explain why that person confessed falsely. I'm sure that was a fascinating read.--Jcally66 (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Cheevers

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of this case. The issue at hand was a constitutional issue. The State Supreme Court made a distinction between court ordered psychological examinations when a defendant is employing a voluntary intoxication defense as opposed to an insanity defense, as each applies to permissible testimony by the examining psychiatrist/psychologist in context to the 5th amendment. This was an unprecedented holding and only binding in the State of Kansas. The Court specified that the constitutional error was made by the prosecutors and the lower courts. You seem to be implying that there was some sort of malfeasance by the psychiatrist; and that simply has no basis in either fact or the sources you employed. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that the court was criticizing the manner of Welner's testimony. Again, this has no basis in the court's opinion. In order for a case to be overturned due to error, it needs to be shown that the error impacted the outcome of the case. The Justices were pointing out that the Welner's testimony was powerfully presented and therefore likely had an impact. There is none of the negative connotations you seem to be searching for. To be quite honest -- I don't know why anyone would consider this case to be significant for anything other than a survey of recent constitutional precedents within Kansas. Lawblogger18 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

?? Not significant? Jayson Williams and Chris Benoit were significant, but not Cheever? A capital murder case that sparked nationwide legislation on the sale of possible precursors to manufacturing methamphetamine? I don't understand it's a constitutional case even though I specifically referred to it as revolving around the 5th Amendment?? Again, from the summary of the ruling:

:“Because we are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Welner’s testimony did not contribute to the capital murder and attempted capital murder verdicts obtained in this case, this constitutional error cannot be declared harmless,” the justices’ opinion said. “Consequently, Cheever’s convictions for capital murder and attempted capital murder must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.” Cheever initially was charged in federal court, and it was a U.S. District Court judge who ordered Cheever to undergo the mental examination with Welner. The federal case was later dismissed seven days into jury selection, at which point Kansas refiled its charges. The defense had objected to Welner’s testimony at trial. The psychiatrist testified, among other things, that Cheever was not impaired by drug use at the time he shot Samuels, and that he had the ability to reason before pulling the trigger. The Supreme Court said Welner’s testimony stood out because he was the last witness the jury heard during Cheever’s trial and his testimony was “extensive and devastating.” “He employed a method of testifying that virtually put words into Cheever’s mouth,” the justices wrote in their unsigned opinion. “He focused on the events surrounding the shootings, giving a moment-by-moment recounting of Cheever’s observations and actual thoughts to rebut the sole defense theory that he did not premeditate the crimes.”

Your comment that this was an “unprecedented holding and only binding in the State of Kansas” is a nonsensical statement as far as the law goes. The Kansas court’s finding that Dr. Welner’s testimony was in violation of the 5th Amendment is a ruling as to the specific case at hand. I guess if you want to say it is “unprecedented” because this particular testimony, in this particular case, had never been ruled on by any other court, then that may be true, but under the law your statement makes no sense. Under your interpretation of “unprecedented”, every ruling by every court in the country would fall into that territory. The State Supreme Court of Kansas, ruled that Welner’s testimony violated the 5th Amendment. The Court interpreted the specific facts in light of the Constitution like courts do every day, in every state across the nation. Could a different court, on a different day, in a different case find that testimony in which an expert witness “virtually puts words” into the mouth of the defendant, be allowed? Certainly, yes. (Although if this unique situation was to present itself in the future you can be certain that the Cheever case would be used to argue that the evidence is unconstitutional), that does not change the fact that in this particular case, Welner’s testimony was found to be unconstitutional by a State Supreme Court, and that in this particular case, Welner’s testimony contributed to a death penalty being overturned. That clearly is significant.

It is true, as you say, that the “error” was made by the prosecution. Welner was a prosecution witness, and therefore the error was the government’s. If you really are a lawyer, then you should know that the error was found in the government’s allowing Welner to testify to thoughts, and observations by Cheever. The government may have committed the error, but they made that error through the mouth of Dr. Welner.--Jcally66 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I think you are either fundamentally misunderstanding or misstating the basis of the Justices’ decision. This appeal was decided specifically on (i) whether the courts/prosecutions decision to call an expert to testify about a forced psychiatric evaluation was a constitutional violation, and (ii) whether such error could have impacted the outcome of the trial.

Your version of the applicable edited paragraphs states:

In 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed Cheever’s convictions and ordered a new trial after determining that Dr. Welner’s testimony had violated Cheever’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.[57] The Supreme Court focused on Welner’s 5 hour testimony and described it as “extensive and devastating.” The ruling also stated, “He employed a method of testifying that virtually put words into Cheever’s mouth." and that “He focused on the events surrounding the shootings, giving a moment-by-moment recounting of Cheever’s observations and actual thoughts to rebut the sole defense theory that he did not premeditate the crimes.”

The problem I have with this summary is that is drafted to contrive and infer some sort of error and prejudice by the prosecution’s expert. The explanation you provide above to defend this wording is that “The government may have committed the error, but they made that error through the mouth of Dr. Welner”. This logic for not stating the facts directly and simply, is so pretzled and backwards, that it can only be viewed as misguided or disengeniuous.

My version corrects these issues, states the facts in a neutral and straightforward manner, explains the basis for the court’s decision, and provides a context for the ruling, and uses language which is completely supported (almost verbatim) by the sources:

In 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court, which has yet to uphold a death sentence imposed under the state’s 1994 capital murder law, reversed Cheever’s convictions and ordered a new trial after determining that Cheever’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination had been violated .[57] During his jury trail, Cheever’s lawyers relied on a voluntary intoxication defense, arguing that Cheever’s heavy use of meth prevented him from forming the intent or premeditation to commit murder. During Cheever’s time in the federal court system, U.S. District Judge Monte Belot ordered him to undergo a psychiatric examination by Dr. Welner, the forensic psychiatrist hired by the government. The Supreme Court ruled that because Cheever hadn’t used mental disease or defect as a defense, the privileged conversation with the psychiatrist shouldn’t have been allowed by the lower court and constituted a violation of Cheever’s 5th amendment right against self incrimination. The Supreme Court said the 5th Amendment does not prevent a judge from ordering a defendant to submit to a mental exam. But the court said it does prevent the state from using the exam against the defendant at trial.

In determining whether the error by the lower courts affected the outcome of the case, the Supreme Court focused on Welner’s 5 hour testimony and described it as “extensive and devastating.” The ruling also stated, “He employed a method of testifying that virtually put words into Cheever’s mouth." and that “He focused on the events surrounding the shootings, giving a moment-by-moment recounting of Cheever’s observations and actual thoughts to rebut the sole defense theory that he did not premeditate the crimes.”[58]

One more point: You are prone to selectively reference portion of sources that are not used in the BLP or provided on the talk page. You do this above, and I have no way to verify or comment on the statements you make. Lawblogger18 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)