| Revision as of 12:39, 5 April 2006 editNunh-huh (talk | contribs)30,738 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:35, 6 April 2006 edit undoBigHat (talk | contribs)3 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :If you know something is false, you should just remove it - especially a comment like this one, made almost as an aside. I've just done so. - ] 12:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | :If you know something is false, you should just remove it - especially a comment like this one, made almost as an aside. I've just done so. - ] 12:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Ok. Sorry. Just new to this and did not want to presume. | |||
Revision as of 14:35, 6 April 2006
I have a suspicion that my grandmother is the daughter of John Barrymore and Evelyn Nesbit. The timing, facts of my grandmother's birth and adoption in July, 1904, and her step-mother's deep commitment to secrecy and interest in Evelyn Nesbit make it a possibility that one of her "appendectomies" (aborting John Barrymore's acknowledged fetuses) actually was born and given into adoption. My grandmother grew up near Pittsburg around Connellsville, PA. Her step-mother would not tell her who her real mother was, only to mention that some day all would be OK since she was the daughter of very important people that could not admit she was alive. Her mother, a midwife, died before she could tell her the secret.
My grandmother has a very interesting tale to tell if anyone is interested. She lives alone in a small town in Southwest Georgia and is 101 and very healthy. You can contact me via timb707@yahoo.com. This isn’t about money; this is about a wonderful woman maybe finding out who her parents were.
I don't have enough expertise to edit the Evelyn Nesbit article, but clearly Stanford White did not "slip a roofie in drink" in 1900! Perhaps it was a "Mickey Finn," but I'll leave the research to others. Dangold 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The "roofie" business was slipped in by an anonymous "donor" and is gone now. I'm also removing the cleanup notice as no discussion as to what should be "cleaned up" was given hear, and it's not clear that it's pertinent any longer. If someone feels it should be added back, please do so only after dropping a clue on the talk page as to why you may think so. - Nunh-huh 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In the "Trial" section of the article, it states that Thaw's plea of temporary insanity was the first use of this defense. This is inaccurate: in 1869, US Congressman Daniel Sickles was acquitted of the murder of US Atttorney for the District of Columbia, Philip Barton Key, on the basis of temporary insanity. The insanity defense had been used before then, but the Sickles trial probaly represents the first successful 'temporary insanity' plea in US legal history. - unsigned
- If you know something is false, you should just remove it - especially a comment like this one, made almost as an aside. I've just done so. - Nunh-huh 12:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry. Just new to this and did not want to presume.