This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
See article from Ha'aretz for example of one of the problems with using DNA as evidence
The charges were widely expected after it emerged in court yesterday that the teenager’s DNA had been found on the rock that had struck Rabi in the head and ended her life.
"For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". The home arrest release is also an indication of weakness of evidence here. In any event - there is no court ruling here. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Please keep this off the page. It suppressed key information of dissent contained in the mainstream reports and is also cited as stating:
In May 2019, the juvenile was released to house arrest after a forensic report submitted to the court concluded that al-Rabi's injuries were not consistent with being hit by the stone
Well he didn't say that, he said:
In searching the professional literature, there was no case found in which such broad wounds [found on the victim] were the result of one strike of a stone.
The Times of Israel also reports:
The Lod District Court ordered a one-day delay in the release of the Israeli teen to house arrest, which had been scheduled by the court for Tuesday, in order to give the prosecution more time to appeal the decision. Hours later, the prosecution announced that it would indeed file an objection.
His release was scheduled for yesterday, but postponed until today so that the prosecution could file an appeal. So one should not be swooping down on statements until one has at least a day or two to evaluate them given breaking news should be handled with care, and waiting a day to get perspective important. Nishidani ( talk) 15:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
""Two other doctors believed that, based on the data presented to us, the quality of the imperfect images and the relatively undetailed description in the opinion, it is impossible to decide either way."- it does contain the dissent between the coroners. Arutz7 (as well as Walla, YNET, Haaretz, etc.) - pushed out a whole bunch of items - the early ones (on all of them) - were incomplete - the contents of Kugel's report (as opposed to its existence and headline result) showed up later in the cycle - in the beginning they were all reporting according to the headliner of the forensics report. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source for anything besides what the settler movement believes. nableezy - 17:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I could not find it in any source so I took it out. ImTheIP ( talk) 03:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
See article from Ha'aretz for example of one of the problems with using DNA as evidence
The charges were widely expected after it emerged in court yesterday that the teenager’s DNA had been found on the rock that had struck Rabi in the head and ended her life.
"For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". The home arrest release is also an indication of weakness of evidence here. In any event - there is no court ruling here. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Please keep this off the page. It suppressed key information of dissent contained in the mainstream reports and is also cited as stating:
In May 2019, the juvenile was released to house arrest after a forensic report submitted to the court concluded that al-Rabi's injuries were not consistent with being hit by the stone
Well he didn't say that, he said:
In searching the professional literature, there was no case found in which such broad wounds [found on the victim] were the result of one strike of a stone.
The Times of Israel also reports:
The Lod District Court ordered a one-day delay in the release of the Israeli teen to house arrest, which had been scheduled by the court for Tuesday, in order to give the prosecution more time to appeal the decision. Hours later, the prosecution announced that it would indeed file an objection.
His release was scheduled for yesterday, but postponed until today so that the prosecution could file an appeal. So one should not be swooping down on statements until one has at least a day or two to evaluate them given breaking news should be handled with care, and waiting a day to get perspective important. Nishidani ( talk) 15:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
""Two other doctors believed that, based on the data presented to us, the quality of the imperfect images and the relatively undetailed description in the opinion, it is impossible to decide either way."- it does contain the dissent between the coroners. Arutz7 (as well as Walla, YNET, Haaretz, etc.) - pushed out a whole bunch of items - the early ones (on all of them) - were incomplete - the contents of Kugel's report (as opposed to its existence and headline result) showed up later in the cycle - in the beginning they were all reporting according to the headliner of the forensics report. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source for anything besides what the settler movement believes. nableezy - 17:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I could not find it in any source so I took it out. ImTheIP ( talk) 03:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)