Talk:George Stinney

This Article is POV

According to the article, the judgment "exonerating" Stinney acknowledges that he may have committed the crime. Unless someone thinks that his race, or that of the victims, gives him a free pass to commit murder and escape proper punishment for the crime . . . John Paul Parks (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hardly anyone here thinks that his race gives him a "free pass." But try to think critically here. Try to actually think about the facts. For one thing, the key words are "may have." No one knows for certain if he actually did it or not, which is disturbing, that we still have no idea if he was actually guilty. For the second thing, a 14-year-old black boy, a child, in the Jim Crow South, was accused (by white adult officials) of murdering two white girls. Stinney did not have his family or a lawyer with him at the time of the supposed "confession," no one was present at this "confession" except for the officials who already believed he was guilty when they brought him in, this child was given ice cream as an incentive to confess, and the confession no longer exists for us to actually view. His trial lasted for two hours, and his jury deliberated for 10 minutes before sending him to death row. When the governor turned down Stinney's plea for clemency, his reasoning was based on incorrect information, including supposed necrophilia and other horrendous deeds that made the crime sound even worse than it already was, which the medical examiner in the case said had never happened. And this is not even going into the physical evidence. Stinney was small for his age, at 5 feet and 90 pounds, and he supposedly bashed two skulls in with a 25-pound railroad spike. As someone who is as tall as Stinney and weighs slightly more than he does, I can say that would be just about impossible. And you don't see any cause to question the proceedings or Stinney's guilt, given those details? No cause at all?

It might benefit you to look at this case with less bias and defensiveness. Making excuses for an obvious injustice is never a good look. I would feel the same way if it were a 14-year-old white child who had gone through this, and it would be just as much of an injustice, but let's be honest; a 14-year-old white child never would have gone through this. I would know, because I have researched it, and it has never happened in the US. And given his age, at 14, "proper punishment" is very subjective. Considering that 14-year-olds are (and have always been) children, why would it be "proper" for the state to execute a 14-year-old boy for committing murder, even if he were guilty? The death penalty exists to punish adults, not children. South Carolina really stretched themselves thin to excuse executing this boy in 1944, or else the courts would not have reversed the conviction in 2014.

I also want to point out that formerly, you had a sentence in the article saying that it was "not unusual" back then for people to be executed 83 days after committing their crimes; you included the example of Giuseppe Zangara, a white man who was executed 34 days after committing a murder. Comparing the execution of a political assassin to a small-town murderer is ignorant. Zangara, who was a dark-skinned Italian (a group that faced biases in the legal system as well, albeit not as bad as blacks in the South), and was also very clearly deranged, attempted to assassinate President Roosevelt. He assassinated the mayor of Chicago instead. Given those details, of course the state would rush to kill him quickly. On top of that, unlike Stinney, he never attempted to appeal or even remotely fight his death sentence. Stinney had no appeal, but he asked the governor for clemency, and it still only took 83 days before he was executed. And on top of that, they were in different states with different legal systems (Florida versus South Carolina). You were comparing apples to oranges. Your example was a false equivalency. It had absolutely no place in this article. I removed it. Afddiary (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"But let's be honest; a 14-year-old white child never would have gone through this". True. A white boy is multiple times less likely to commit a crime like this. Low activity MAOA allele, high impulsivity, intellectual impairment are less prevalent in the white population. 37.219.37.204 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is wikipedia and it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a place to showcase racist bias. I think the point of the comment you're responding to is to explain an edit, not to attack any race. Your statement isn't even correct. George Stinney was a 14 year old juvenile and whilst you obviously consider his sub-Saharan African heritage to be evidence of his criminality, I'd just like to point out that there are many convicted murderers who happened to be both children and European or "white" such as Mary Bell, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables and several of the children on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers who were also younger and did in fact not only kill but in the named instances also mutilated the bodies.

A directly comparable case from the era, is Ernest Feltwell Jr, a 16 year old white youth who was convicted of attempted rape and murder but got 20 years in prison instead of the death penalty. https://www.postandcourier.com/news/special_reports/in-1944-george-stinney-was-young-black-and-sentenced-to-die/article_a87181dc-2924-11e8-b4e0-4f958aa5ba1c.html

Your comment is not only incorrect in this regard, " A white boy is multiple times less likely to commit a crime like this." because it doesn't account for the relative lack of child on child murders in predominantly "black" countries such as most of the caribbean nor the disproportionate amount of criminal "children" in the USA in comparison to other countries. For example, I'm sure the USA leads the world in school shootings https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-trnd/index.html and "A white boy is multiple times" more likely to be the perpetrator https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/ These boys and young men in the case of other mass shootings also seem to frequently be on prescription medication for various mental health conditions: https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/medication-induced-violence/.

Also in regard to this, "Low activity MAOA allele, high impulsivity, intellectual impairment are less prevalent in the white population." I'm not sure where you got your information since it is not referenced nor do you mention which geographic region this "white population" lives in, so perhaps you should consider that what you've written is an opinion based on (racist) confirmation bias and not an evidence based fact. Iynx (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I’ll start with a simple question that will break your entire poem.

Why did you lie and say his weapon was 25 pounds? Can you point to us why did you make it up?

Racial bias… Lucky you’ll never be a judge. Sprmni (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

---

George Stinney appears to be guilty based on the following: 1. Deputy Newman's interrogation notes. Here is the full text of his notes (which Wikipeadia , apparently to serve their own agenda to re-write this incident) has refused to include: Deputy Newman's Interrogation notes: '"I was notified that the bodies had been found. I went down to where the bodies were at. I found Mary Emma she was rite [sic] at the edge of the ditch with four or five wounds on her head, on the other side of the ditch the Binnicker girl, were [sic] laying there with 4 or 5 wounds in her head, the bicycle the girls had were beside the little Binnicker girl. By information I received I arrested a boy by the name of George Stinney ... he then made a confession and told me where a piece of iron about 15 inches long were, he said he put it in a ditch about 6 feet from the bicycle which was lying in the ditch."'

2. The police found the murder weapon - apparently a 1 lbs railroad spike - because George told them what it was and where it was. Only the true murderer would know what the murder weapon was and where it was.

3. The NAACP refused to get involved in this case. Why? The NAACP also never proclaimed that George was innocent and/or that he was being railroaded by racist southern white people.

4. George's parents never proclaimed their son was innocent.

5. George never proclaimed his innocence. Never.

6. The S.Carolina Governor was petitioned by the NAACP to commute the sentence and he agreed to look at all the facts of the case. He concluded, as the jury did, George was guilty, and the penalty for George's atrocity - consistent with S.Carolina's law - was death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.93.158.26 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I’m sure that a crooked deputy’s notes from a forced interrogation are quite the reliable source. TheXuitts (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What a troll.

he literally was found guilty by all of the population, including his parents, he knew where the weapon was and confessed on all occasions. Get over yourself you racist bigot, this case has nothing to do with racial issues. Sprmni (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"Crooked deputy"? WOW. No evidence to make such a ridiculous, disgraceful assertion. NONE. The NAACP and George's parents appealed to the governor for "clemency" based on the murderer's age. Note that is was not based on the assertion that George was innocent of the double murders/ sexual assault on the white girls. All the evidence points to George's guilt. Nothing points to his innocents.

"he had not received a fair trial, effectively clearing his name."  ??? How does not receiving a fair trial show you did not commit a crime?73.89.206.199 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The presumption of innocence clears his name. After a vacated conviction (because the trial was not fair), in the eyes of the law, it is as if he had been charged and not yet convicted, but died before conviction, which abates the case and causes it to be dismissed. Since there was no trial that validly convicted him, he is presumed to be innocent. If it were not for his death, a retrial would result from the vacated conviction. 2001:56A:706E:1100:A556:9FDA:2BC3:EA2E (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The trial was fair for the time as the law of the 6th amendment wasn’t corrected until the 60s. Sprmni (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't, but the court has to prove that he committed the crime, otherwise they could be sentencing innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. Jamesman666 (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

He was proven to be the murderer on many different occasions.

1. Type of weapon

2. Size of weapon

3. Location of weapon

4. Confession

5. No one appealed for his innocence.

if that’s not enough for you, thank god the judge was a smart person who sentenced him appropriately. Sprmni (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read the trial or seen the evidence, but the confession definitely seems to be coerced, i'll believe it when i see some good evidence Jamesman666 (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Should say that he was murdered not executed

As the title says. SavoyenCRO (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There has been no finding that it was a homicide. TJRC (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Capital punishment is by definition a homicide, just not murder. TheXuitts (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Execution is different to homicide and murder, which is why we have an entire different word for it. 2001:8003:2961:AD00:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox: "vacated" or "overturned"?

I edited the infobox to indicate that the conviction and sentence were 'vacated"; TheXuitts reverted it with the comment "They’re synonymous here. Also corrected horrendous grammar". I disagree, but, per WP:BRD, a discussion is the way to go.

I think "vacated" is the correct word here; it's both accurate and precise, and "overturn" is neither.

First, it is accurate: that's what's used in the actual order:

• "This Court ... hereby vacates the judgment"; and
• "Based on the foregoing, I hereby vacate the Defendant's conviction."

The word "overturn" is never used in Judge Mullen's order. The infobox should use the actual disposition set by the judge, not the paraphrase of an editor.

Second, "vacate" is more precise than "overturn". "Overturn" can be understood to mean either "vacate" (which simply un-does the judgment below, making it as if the judgment is no longer in effect); or "reverse", which means to actually find the opposite, which in this case would be a finding of factual innocence. But Judge Mullen expressly did not do that; she expressly cabined the order with the quoted phrase "not on the grounds that the judgment against him was wrong on the merits".

I don't see any benefit in using an imprecise and ambiguous word when we can use the word that has accurate and precise meaning and is, in fact, the actual order made by the judge.

I don't have any objection to using "overturned" in the body of the article, where it's used in conjunction with the precise "vacated", thereby removing any ambiguity. But in the infobox, and for that matter, the lede, neither of which have that additional context, the correct term should be used.

As a side note, I don't understand the grammar objection: why is "Conviction overturned" and "(posthumously overturned)" thought to be correct, but "conviction vacated" and "(posthumously vacated)" thought to be "horrendous grammar"? TJRC (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "vacate" normally indicates that the original judgement is no longer valid; "overturn" indicates that it was determined to be wrong. But if TheXuitts really thinks they're synonyms, they won't mind if you revert back to "vacate". Ornilnas (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Vacate" means the original judgement is no longer valid. If a conviction is vacated, it means the accused has been charged but not convicted. This would normally result in a retrial. In the US, if the accused is dead, the charges will be dismissed, which is the final disposition of this case. 2001:56A:706E:1100:C00C:31FA:FB4:21B3 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Should state in introduction that the consensus is he was wrongfully convicted and innocent

It has been shown to be almost conclusive to anyone educated on the case that Stinney was innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted of in 1944. It would be a fool’s errand to attempt to prove his guilt with the overwhelming evidence pointing to his innocence, not his guilt, which is examined throughout the article already. In addition to this, other victims of wrongful convictions such as Joe Arridy and Leo Frank have it stated in their articles’ leads that they were wrongfully convicted, despite it not being explicitly stated of their innocence in their vacated judgments or pardons of their convictions. Therefor, I believe it is almost obvious that it’s time for it to state in the lead that Stinney was wrongfully convicted, or at the VERY LEAST that the COMMON CONSENSUS is that he was wrongfully convicted, which would have excessive citation to support that claim. I am aware that this topic has been discussed extensively before, but the fact that this hasn’t been done already is honestly just madness. We need to cut the BS here. Just because the judge said it is possible he is guilty does not overturn reality thag the overwhelming evidence points to Stinney’s innocence and not his guilt. This is not even asking for the lead to say he is innocent, simply that it says either that he was wrongfully convicted or that the common consensus is that he was wrongfully convicted. TheXuitts (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If the consensus is that he was definitely innocent, that's what the article should say. You can add this information to the main body of the article (and remember to include your excessive citation as a source), and then to the summary in the lead. Ornilnas (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

We report only what's actually reported elsewhere, rather than our own beliefs (or the beliefs of others). In this case, the judge herself who vacated the conviction expressly declined to rule on Stinney's factual innocence. So that's what we report. TJRC (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The NAACP and George's parents appealed to the governor for "clemency" based on the George's age, not based on the assertion that George was innocent of the double murders/ sexual assault on the white girls. All the evidence points to George's guilt. Nothing points to his innocents. This is just yet another black atrocity which is being re-written e.g. Rosewood, Tulsa riot, Houston Massacre to name but a few. Wikipedia is a full and active player in this agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.238.140 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: any discussion here on changing the wording need to address the issues where consensus was reached at Talk:George_Stinney/Archive_1#Use_of_"wrongly"_convicted. It's a fairly complex issue, and the consensus reached there was a balance of several viewpoints.

While consensus certainly can change, we need to be mindful of substituting editor's own viewpoints for those actually in the record.

@Kieronoldham, Ornilnas, and Tym Whittier: Without canvassing, I'm neutrally pinging all editors who were involved in that discussion, regardless of their positions. TJRC (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping, and agree with TJRC's observation, and one or two others. I stand by my previous observations in the archived discussions (and the observations of a few others at the time). I don't allow sentiments to cloud my opinions. His trial (if the event actually deserves to be referred to as such) was a farce; his being executed at 14 was a disgrace. Does not mean he was innocent, though. I could say way more, but I will just add that his story of eliminating the younger girl so he could have sex with the older one seems to fit the wound pattern to both (bear in mind these were the days before advances in forensics etc.), plus the older girl's genitals were bruised but she had not been fully penetrated is a classic sign the perpetrator was a sexually inexperienced boy in his early- to mid-teens.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And how exactly do you expect a 5’1, 95-pound boy to move two girls to a ditch without a blood trace? The bruise is a red herring, not to mention that it was described as a SLIGHT bruise, which, since the girls were literally bicycling, could have easily been caused by a slight impact while riding it, or something completely unrelated could’ve occurred. The allegations against Burke Jr. fit with this way more than the BS levied against Stinney. TheXuitts (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Guys, you're missing the point.

It is not up to Wikipedia contributors to make their own findings as to a person's guilt or innocence. TheXuitts have their opinion, Kieronoldham has his, other editors likely have their own.

But those opinions are completely immaterial. We report only on findings that have actually been made. We have a guilty verdict in the 1944 trial; and we have the judge's order vacating that guilty finding in 2014. That's what we report. We do not substitute our own judgments for the verified reported facts. TJRC (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

My point has still not been addressed that Joe Arridy and Leo Frank’s false convictions are mentioned in their article’s leads. TheXuitts (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are points to bring up in those articles' talk pages. TJRC (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Leo Frank's case has nothing to do with this one. The sterile facts are what matters to this case and this case only. There is nothing to prove a false confession in this case. His conviction was vacated, and rightly so given the lack of a trial. Yes you can look at an era and general attitudes but it does not mean every last individual brought before a court was innocent. You weren't there; nor was I. Facts speak and not sentiments. We can't prove anything one way or the other. (Sorry, TJRC, I agree with your oversight here and did from the start.)--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The judge ruled that it was a forced confession, which is different from a false confession. This caused the original judgement to be vacated. Guilt is undetermined, but there would be no retrial, as the accused is dead. 2001:56A:706E:1100:D199:16C2:73ED:BA11 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the details of the Joe Arridy and Leo Frank cases, but the Leo Frank article does include a source which unambiguously says that "The modern historical consensus (...) is that (...) Leo Frank was an innocent man convicted at an unfair trial." If you can find a source which says the same for Stinney, it should be included. The sources you provided in the edit that was revised, were all newspaper articles that (often inaccurately) summarized the ruling which vacated Stinney's sentence. Finally, note that the current lead ends with "effectively clearing his name". I actually think that's a little misleading as well, as it implies he was found innocent; but it's ambiguous enough that it's not wrong. Going out of your way to specify that he was found innocent of the crime, is crossing the line. Ornilnas (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, we have consensus that the earth is actually flat prior to a certain period, even though objectively we know the earth was never flat. Consensus is why wikipedia is always so erroneous and inadmissible in the classroom. What is correct doesn't care about whether we agree with it. This dude had his conviction vacated because he was black, it was a political move. None of the additional evidence (read through it, it's actually interesting) proves anything at all. The fact that he knew where the murder weapon was and had details that the police hadn't yet found is pretty compelling. The reality is he most probably did do it, but because he is black and is being held up as some kind of civil rights martyr the history books will, as usual, be retconned by political activists masquerading as historians and wikipedians.

This spits on the grave of the innocent women who were violently murdered and endured horrors we would never inflict on our worst enemies. It pisses in the face of them when you pretend their murderer is innocent just because you're a pack of raving racists who think that because we have darker skin color than you we cannot commit crimes. Or maybe you just think we're too low IQ to be culpable for said crimes. 2001:8003:2961:AD00:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Whilst this started logical as it's understood on Wikipedia that we cannot make judgement based on our personal feelings on factual information to maintain the integrity of the articles and allow the reader to interpret the pure facts for them selves, your argument devolved into horrid lies and then a strange opinion.

George Stinney was NOT vacated as a "political move". It was clearly stated by the judge that he was vacated for not receiving fair trial(6th amendment violation) and that the execution of a 14 year old forever pertains being cruel and unusual punishment(8th amendment violation). Both of these statements are valid assessing that his attorney failed to represent him and his jury being all-white with black people being disallowed. If you'd like to dispute that having any 14 year old executed for crime is not cruel and unusual, I can't convince you of much. Usage of one's brains to revise the idea that George Stinney had a fair trial should not be considered "retconned by political activists" and rather an advancement in logic. It doesn't matter whether or not he committed the crime when it comes to vacating his conviction, only the violation of his rights.

I struggle to even pull a response to the last paragraph. To cast doubt upon dubious cases is not an action that "spits on the grave of the innocent women who were violently murdered and endured horrors we would never inflict on our worst enemies." Making assumptions on the other parties skin tone whilst attempting to use yours to justify why they are wrong is beyond strange.

Would you like to prove that the OP believes black people are "too low IQ to be culpable for said crimes"?

I see a lot of hate in your heart seething in the last lines of this reply. I hope nowadays your heart is happy and filled with joy. Jwnjdadekuh (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

How do you add photos

How? 47.188.156.111 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Magic. TheXuitts (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 1102 NET 65

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Montenegrok1127 (article contribs).

Laws changing over the year

The law before and now [1] The united states supreme court protects those who are below the age of 15 or younger for the death penalty The death penalty has been going on since the early 1600s, one of the first documented executions was in 1634, a 16 year old boy was hung for having intercourse with a mare, a cow and goats. The youngest girl to be executed was 12 year old Native American Hannah Ocuish. She murdered a 6 year old white girl in 1786. The use of executing children under the age of 18 has been going on for many years Montenegrok1127 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Montenegrok1127

While in the US, the latest person executed as a juvenile was Leonard Shockley in 1959, and the latest person executed for juvenile crimes was Scott Hain in 2003, other countries continue to execute minors, such as Zeinab Sekaanvand in 2018. 2001:56A:706E:1100:A556:9FDA:2BC3:EA2E (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

African american

Use black American. The use of African insinuates they weren't slaves. African-American means a African person came to America and had American kids. Black Americans were stolen and don't have any connections with Africa or any of their people. 2603:3003:C86:4000:9CC5:9750:53FC:772C (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done See Citizenship Clause. TJRC (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Disposal of case

When a conviction is vacated, there is no conviction (it "place[s] the parties in the position of no trial having taken place at all; thus a vacated judgment is of no further force or effect." on Vacated judgement). This puts the case in the position where charges have been laid but no trial yet.

The article needs an explanation for the disposition of the charge. In the US, if the accused is dead, the charges will be dismissed (see Mootness and Abatement ab initio). Otherwise, there'd be a retrial unless the court otherwise disposes of the charges. --2001:56A:706E:1100:D199:16C2:73ED:BA11 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting interpretation, and may even be right. But there's no question but that this is pure WP:OR. You'll need cites to add it to the article. TJRC (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The first part of the explanation with a citation can be copied from Vacated judgement, which I have done. As for the other part, there are many sources that state what happens (vacate conviction and dismiss charge) if an accused dies between conviction and appeal, but I have not found a good source confirming that when an accused dies between charge (indictment) and conviction.

In the Central Park jogger case, the defendants file "Motion to Vacate Judgment", and in response, the prosecutor files "Affirmation in response to motion to vacate judgment of conviction" (https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/wise.pdf) to agree and move to dismiss the charges should the convictions be vacated: "Should the Court, as requested by the parties, vacate the convictions, the People will move the Court to dismiss the indictments." In the judgement (https://casetext.com/case/people-v-wise-46), the court decides "defendants' motion to vacate judgment and order a new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, must be granted". The dismissal of charges is handled elsewhere.

In Stinney's case, the charges would be dismissed because the defendant is dead, but without references, it is unclear whether the prosecutors in 2014 filed a motion to dismiss separately, or if the court dismissed it in another order. 2001:56A:706E:1100:B1C1:2FA:8EEF:3A25 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, in Groveland Four, the state also moved to posthumously dismiss the indictments, and the court granted that motion. It explicitly mentions the dismissal of the indictments of two suspects who were shot and killed by the same officer before they were convicted, and it also seems to imply the dismissal of the indictments for the two vacated convictions. 2001:56A:706E:1100:A556:9FDA:2BC3:EA2E (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

A new photo in the background info

I am unable to add photos but can someone please add the photo in this article https://librarynews.northeastern.edu/?p=275797 and caption it “Stinney in 1940” It never said what year it was on the article, but I remember a different site I can’t find anymore saying it. 174.242.222.6 (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Sister's name

The name of Stinney's sister is spelled inconsistently throughout the article as "Aimé" and "Amie". Which is correct? Muzilon (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)