Talk:Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

Allegations of mutilation

Though false rumors is not a good thing, I hardly consider this to be an urban legend by any means; the fact that white supremacists perpetuate mutilation allegations itself does not make it false, just like the devil telling us that 2+2=4 does not make it false. I'll try to find a link ASAP, but I remember when the authorities were deciding which photos to show during the trial, it was pointed out that "from the manner and distance the photos were taken, one could not tell that the photos of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were human bodies." That sounds like some mutilation going on... Rocky 03:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsom was shot in the back of the neck and set on fire. I'd imagine anyone who was shot and torched probably wouldn't look too human after THAT.Simplemines (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I recall hearing those words as well someplace. Hope we find documentation for it soon, assuming that it has not been suppressed or denied; sorry, but I trust any 3rd party sources such as a coroner or photographer much more than the Knoxville PD.

The specific allegations made by the white supremacists were that Channon's breasts were cut off while she was alive and Christopher was castrated also while he was alive. Nothing has come out that lend any credence to those claims. No one is saying that these poor kids didn't suffer greatly, because clearly they did. However, to insert the inflammatory and specific claim about mutilation would require an excellent source. Coroner? Absolutely. Photographer? Yes, since any photographer who had taken pictures of the victims would be associated with law enforcement or the coroner's office. If you can find a reliable source to back it up, by all means carefully reinsert the mutilation claims. AniMate 03:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article from 2007 from one of Tennessee's (Knoxville?) local newspapers.

http://www.wate.com/global/story.asp?s=7076724&ClientType=Printable

"Prosecutors say the crime scene photos they use will be the least graphic ones they have available.

In fact, one prosecutor pointed out that in the manner and distance the photos were taken from, "one cannot tell the pictures of Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom were human bodies." - rock8591 20:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not all too well-versed in the details of legal speech, so someone else will have to take it for what it is interpret it for me, and more importantly, if it fits anywhere at all in this article. - rock8591 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

The erroneous early reports of dismemberment came from a federal deputy after the arrest of the fugitive suspects who had fled across state lines to Kentucky. The dismemberment reported by local newspapers was that Newsom had been castrated and Christian's breasts had been cut off. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Why no photos of the murderers?

I think many people would want to see the murderers on a murder story article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.189.161 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Because no one has been able to provide a free image of the alleged murderers. We have a policy on non-free content. AniMate^draw 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This may be true, but it's worth noting that the image of the victims is not free either. As such I have added some fair-use images of some of the convicts. --09:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expo776 (talk • contribs)

Actually, fair use doesn't apply to the murderers. They're still alive and someone conceivably could take free photographs of them. The same cannot be said for the victims. AniMate 10:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Any image taken by a government agency, for example, can be used. It's a shame a straightforward news story carries so much baggage from people with agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.189.161 (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not bullshit. At one point I believe someone tried to get the mugshots from the police in Knoxville but ran into some problems. As the alleged killers are still alive it's not unreasonable to expect us to produce free images. It's policy. As you seem pretty passionate about it, you can always do the leg work and get the photos. AniMate^draw 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can hunt down the pictures, by all means, upload them with the proper tags and stick them in the article. Nobody is stopping you. Asarelah (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am mailing a FOIA letter tomorrow 173.56.121.33 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

AniMate is certainly correct that those who tried to post pictures of the perpetrators "ran into some problems", the "problems" being that there are a large number of Wikipedia editors who will go to any lengths to ensure that no such pictures ever appear in the article, for reasons that are well known.Shiresman (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your (thinly veiled) assertion is factually incorrect. You have as much access to public domain sources as anyone else. It's a shame that policy conflicts with your desire to make a point, but things are what they are. No one is stopping you from finding public domain images or obtaining copyright permissions from rights-holders. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the mug shots of the suspects and pictures of the victims were on the page several times, and removed several times. Some folks still posting thought the pictures were "prejudicial" to the suspects. Mugshots are indeed public domain. Even Wikipedia says so (look under mug shot.) You can take the pictures anywhere you can find them, since whoever got the mug shots got them the same way you would, by asking for them. Public domain pix don't become private property if they're published by a profit-making venture. But good luck posting the pix. The same people who kept REMOVING them the first time will keep removing them again and again and again. Simplemines (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Simplemines. Rock8591 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As am I. It's laughably obvious what's going on here. Haemo, AniMate and possibly some others will never, ever allow the pictures of these men to appear on this page. The reality of this case and of others like it are clearly far too uncomfortable for them. So the pictures will always be deleted. All in the name of combatting people with agendas, you see.

Still, the good thing is that anyone who is interested in the case will have access to this talk page, where they will very quickly be able to see exactly what is going on here.Shiresman (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal comfort levels of editors are of no concern here. The photos should be reinstated. Can someone point out the public domain mug shots? 99.232.219.131 (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems there's a stack here: http://media.graytvinc.com/images/victims-suspects-stack.jpg 173.56.121.33 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy reason to exclude photos of the perps in this article. The issue is (or was the last time I saw images uploaded) the lack of proper attribution and copyright information. I don't think there would be any problem uploading the images as long as they are free (such as mugshots) and properly attributed. Uncle Dick (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue is not decidable by assertion because of what anyone wants it to be. The copyright issue is complex. To summarize a number of discussions I've looked at: works by the US federal government are automatically in the public domain but works of state and local governments are usually not (except for Florida), and it is irrelevant whether the material was in a press release or given out free of charge. Some interesting discussion is at Template talk:Non-free mugshot. A FOIL request (not FOIA I think, which is for federal works) might be successful at obtaining copies of the mugshots, but the recipient would just be getting copies of copyrighted images. So unless someone actually has a cogent, evidence-backed reason to dispute that these are in fact copyrighted, the issue becomes one of application of fair use as to our legal ability to include the images, and if that hurdle is passed, one of judgment and weight as to whether we should. Generally on Wikipedia photographs of living persons are not considered fair use because they are potentially replaceable with a free image. I have argued against this is certain circumstances, such as for actresses who are still alive, but a picture of them at 90 years old would be useless since their 20 year old image is their brand. I see no extenuating circumstances here if they are not PD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't lifelong incarceration pretty much preclude the possibility of (legally) obtaining free images of the convicted murderers? See, for example, the fair use rationale for BTK's mug shot. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There clearly are police "mugshots" of the convicted murderers available. So I added the NPOV tag until that matter is resolved. I certainly can agree holding off the photos until they have been proven guilty, but that time has come and gone. 24.7.26.52 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Them being "available" is beside the point. The point is that Wikipedia has a policy that must be followed for images of a certain copyright status. There is absolutely no NPOV issue here. If you can find public domain images, or images you can rightly claim fair use for, please add them to the article Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The racial element is important

There is no question that this is a noteworthy topic, a simple Google search confirms this, but you wouldn't know it from reading this article -- especially not from the first paragraph. Murders and carjackings happen all of the time. Wikipedia of course does not have an article for all of them, nor should it. What makes this particular case stand out is the racial element and ensuing reaction on the Internet. Four blacks viciously raped and murdered a white couple. Despite this crime not being officially designated as a "hate crime", there are a large number of Internet users who believe it should have been tried as such and that some sort of conspiracy exists around hate crimes trials, specifically discriminating against whites. Since this is what makes the topic notable, this must be reflected in the article. Since this topic is only really notable for the racial element, the suspects' and victims' races should be mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Regardless of what some opinionated users want, this has become a racial issue. Wikipedia needs to remain objective and reflect this in the article.

--Expo776 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's fine that you and others have opinions on that, but putting that opinion into the article is what is not objective. The Reaction part of the article covers this adequately without pushing sides. Your insistence on pushing the racial issue beyond that is a problem. DreamGuy (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont feel that these other users are "pushing the racial issue beyond" anything. No one is actually algeging that we shoudl claim that there is an anti-white conspracy in the "hate crimes" system, but the SUGGESTIONS made by many people in the mainstream media and on the Net are part of the reasn why this case is more notable than other crimes commited by blacks against white people. User:Smith Jones 19:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If a lot of opinionated racists want this to be seen as a hate crime, that's their opionion, but a racist reaction is no reason for this article protraying it as a racist issue. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

thats true, and i am not saying that we should come right out and admit that this was a racist issue, BUT in the section for meia attention we can TALK ABOUT the MEDIAS tendency to portray this as a racist story and any major pundits who have concurred. User:Smith Jones 19:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was trying to get across. Hence, my inclusion of the quote from Michelle Malkin. I think my changes made the article a lot more honest and comprehensive. It seems some editors here want to remain completely color-blind with regard to this article. That's fine for their own personal view, but is patently absurd when writing an encyclopedia article on a topic which is only notable for the racial commentary it generated. Otherwise, this would just be another murder! Wikipedia does not have articles for every murder. Perhaps I should start an AFD so we can get to why this is notable in the first place (the racial element, perceived by the media or otherwise). --Expo776 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As you've probably gathered, that's a misuse of the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And the Malkin quote should not have been in the article twice, and doesn't belong in the lead. Someone looking at this article should not go away thinking that Wikipedia is calling this a hate crime. The article makes it crystal clear why this murder was notable, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2010 (UT::

do you mean WP:LEDE? I agree that it shouldnt be in twice, but if it's the mainr eason thwy this article is notable, as per the WP:AFD (can i get a link to the AFD by the way i cant seem to find it on this page?!) then it should be mentioned publically dont you think? ? User:Smith Jones 17:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no AfD, it was reverted by another Administrator. The only reason for the AfD was to make a point And it is mentioned in the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So why exactly is this article notable? Shouldn't that be mentioned in the first paragraph? --Expo776 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article should be edited so that the comments about this crime made by officials is clearly demonstrated to be lies and nonsense.

For example, consider the comment by un-named "president of Criminal Justice Journalists," who said that this crime would not receive a greater amount of media coverage if it had involved five whites doing the same acts to two blacks. The dragging murder of a black man in Jasper, Texas, by two whites garnered vastly more publicity by the national media than did the murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom by five blacks. There are whole orders of magnitude of difference in the degree of media time devoted to these two crimes, and the most likely reason is that the media is far more willing to portray whites as evildoers than do the same with blacks.

Another example, from the same paragraph in the article, arises from the comment of Police Chief Sterling Owen IV, who said that there's no indication that the murders were racially motivated, that it was "random crime." On the assumption that the area where the crimes took place is 50% black and 50% white, the probability that all five of the perpetrators would be blacks and that both of the victims would be whites, in a "random" crime, is two to the seventh power, or one chance in 128. So it's not the way to bet.

If five whites had murdered two blacks, there would be no hesitation about judging the offense to be a hate crime. There would be none of these excuses, none of this going to unreasonable, illogical lengths to bestow benefit of the doubt. The behavior of these officials is as racist as the crime itself was.

How many black victims did these men also murder as a joint venture? I've never heard of any. The Chief's opinion that there must not have been a racial motive because the black perpetrators were known to socialize with whites is also nonsense. It's similar to thinking that someone can't possibly be a burglar because he was seen in similar stores buying goods (and no-doubt casing the establishment for security vulnerabilities). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.192.50 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR. We aren't really interested in your opinion or mine for that matter. And this is not a forum to discuss the issue. Articles are based on sources, see WP:RS, not what we might think. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Update?

There has been a lot of update in this case the past few months, notably the past 2 weeks. Why no updates on this page? rock8591 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the article, the new trials are mentioned, but should have been in the lead as well, which I've fixed. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

New cat

If no one objects I'm going to ad a hate crime cat. --Breachloader (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, missed this. I object and have removed it as the article doesn't give justification for it. Nor do I think that this episode belongs in a history category. I've removed them. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of those categories. DreamGuy (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the other articles in that category and probably because it is horrifically vague at the moment, I would say that this article does belongs in it.

Looks like a two and two vote. does wikipedia have a tie breaker system? --Breachloader (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Breach, Wikipedia is not a democracy. There has been no serious discussion of the categories, and there is nothing close to consensus in either direction here. The real point here is that you haven't provided any justification for adding the categories, nor have you attempted to show us through reliable sources that the article in fact belongs in those categories. If you can do so, then we can have a serious discussion about it. But until then, the categories cannot stand. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Logic dictates that if no form of democracy is taking place reaching a consensus is rather pointless. --Breachloader (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Consensus is built on reasoned debate by people knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you are one of those people. If you can provide a reliable source which says that it was a hate crime, then I will be more than happy to give the addition of the category all due consideration. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So it is a democracy of sorts then? --Breachloader (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus and democracy are not the same thing, because we have to operate according to official policy. A "democracy" would be unworkable as we could very well be flooded with IPs and anonymous users from any given interest group that want to change content to fit their standards of acceptability. The principle of "majority rule" in any given case is only valid insofar as it reflects normative application of existing policies. Consensus is a means of putting policy into practice, not the other way around. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)