Talk:Loyd Jowers

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Came across this page while doing some other reading. Inserted "alleged" as there's no proof whatsoever.Odin07 22:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must have been enough proof for King's family to have won a civil suit against Jowers (albeit based on charges he raised himself). I wouldn't dispute the proposition that this trial might not have been the most rigorous in American history, and the word "alleged" may prove to be appropriate. But your assertion that there is "no proof whatsoever" does not stand without citations to the alleged evidence and a solid, published refutation. IMHO you're just barely this side of ethical editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.49.17 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity Martin Luther Kings picture is here alone as it seems at first to be an affiliation of his ~ R.T.G 15:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me a lawsuit against the man who claims there was a conspiracy was destined to succeed, without evidence considered. He claims he was aware of a conspiracy, they sue, he claims he was aware of a conspiracy, they win.72.187.199.192 (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the standards of proof are different between civil trials and criminal trails.

Preponderance of the evidence. . .is the standard required in most civil cases. . .The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.

Beyond reasonable doubt. . .is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings. . .a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.

Read more about the various burdens of proof at Legal burden of proof. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in MLK's case, preponderance of the evidence is the highest standard of an answer that was ever gotten by any court. The man that they convicted (whose name escapes me atm, but it's in the article) was never proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - he PLEADED guilty, in order to avoid a death sentence. Which is tantamount to a coerced/extorted confession and holds no more weight than a tortured confession aside from being sanctioned in American law. (He also maintained until his death that he was framed). There exists other evidence, as well... Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many parts of this article make no sense. How many sisters were there? Whose sisters were they? What were Jowers' claims? What happened after the trial? Tdk408 (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 2601:842:200:7CD0:70F7:713C:8B40:19E0 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The short description has been changed to this: "American found responsible for the assassination of Martin Luther King". Considering the controversy (as we show from multiple RSs), I would think that would need some qualification. Perhaps something like "American found responsible for the assassination of Martin Luther King in a civil trial"....or something like that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]