Talk:Trial begins for Canadian soldier accused of murder in battlefield killing
Review of revision 944035 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 944035 of this article has been reviewed by Dendodge (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This article is factually accurate, and includes all the important information. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 944035 of this article has been reviewed by Dendodge (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This article is factually accurate, and includes all the important information. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Corrections edit
The story states: "Shortly afterwards, with only Semrau near the man, two gunshots were heard. At least one eyewitness claims to have watched Semrau shooting the militant with his field rifle."
In fact, there is no published evidence supporting this, nor has any yet been presented at trial. A more accurate statement would be: "A witness will allege that Semrau was near the man when two gunshots were heard."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.15.170.55 (talk • contribs)
The story should read: "... prosecution documents say a witness will allege that Semrau was near the man when two shots were heard..."
The statement, as written in the story assumes facts that are not in evidence.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.232.217.144 (talk • contribs)
- Neither of you seem to know what an eyewitness is. It has an entirely different meaning from the narrow legal definition of witness. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)