Talk:Murder of Sherri Jarvis

Serial killer?

I doubt WCJD was the only murder of this person. We do know that when these people get caught, it's usually a pattern of behaviour, not an isolated incident. It looks like a long-haul trucker serial killer. Should that theory be in the article? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If a firm and reliable source can be found, perhaps it could be begun, Paul Benjamin Austin. Aspect to be wary of is that (at least that I have read/encountered thus far) it is Lucas as speculation, and "Orange Socks" as a further linked victim. Lucas was used willingly, with his ego, to clear crimes which even geographically he couldn't have committed if dates are concerned. Many have been disproven. It would be good as an expansion, but beyond Lucas in my own opinion to begin with as a section. I'd be happy to help.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I always speculated the case was linked to Orange Socks because WCJD died very close to the anniversary of OS's murder. Since I've learned more about the case, I do find the "I-40 Serial Killer" theory credible and since Huntsville is a few hours away from Georgetown, they might not be related after all. Lucas certainly didn't kill Orange Socks and I'm skeptical he had anything to do with WCJD's murder.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 02:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It is possible - I do not doubt that. Just the Lucas theorizing tangent which needs little or no mention upon the article if included, Nick. Anniversaries in many cases can be symbolic, but in rare instances as in the link, factual alth. only the offender knows if it's beyond coincidental. It is worth adding the dates for sure. WCJD's movements and expressed intentions suggest luring of course. We don't know Orange Socks' do we? Certainly worth inclusion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gourami Watcher:, @Kieronoldham:, on another topic, is it possible that she's been nameless for almost 40 years because the people who knew her don't *want* to find her, especially if she ran away for reason they don't want well-known by the public? Lady of the Dunes has been nameless for 44 years and, as she was an adult, she'd have had more loved ones and friends than WCJD. Again, I think it's because they don't want to find the Lady. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Paul Benjamin Austin Who knows? Obviously speculation is intriguing but ultimately groundless until proven or disproven. I don't think it is worthy of inclusion (certainly beyond a *very brief* mention of theory if consensus is to add). Who am I to do this, but I added her forensic facial reconstruction at the top of the List of unidentified murder victims in the United States page recently, primarily as I thought—and think—this is one of the cases in America with a better chance of identification with public assistance, given what I have read recently. Not just this fact, but also because the page in question has a redirect to Texan cases and no individual case listings upon the page itself. I will work further on this page (Walker County Jane Doe) going forward.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: @Gourami Watcher:, there's a theory on Websleuths that the necklace wasn't WCJD's as it had a thin chain, and should have been damaged during the attack. The poster suggests that the killer put another lady's jewelry on WCJD. Do serial killers really do that... treat their female victims like dress-up dolls? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin:. That is just speculation on that thread. Offenders that dress their victims in differing clothing or apply make-up to them (when the victim is unknown to them prior to abductuction) tend to be acting out fantasies. Usually they will keep their victim for an extended period of time as they can prolong these fantasies which have built up over time. As for the chain, they can be loose, and it depends in where it was when the violence was incflicted to her face, and what positionshe was in.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I just searched for 'I-45 Killer', and all that's on that page is a link here. I'm pretty surprised that there's no main article for the I-45 Killer. Is there a reason for that?--AmateurHistorian (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@AmateurHistorian: So far, there is only one news article that specifically refers to the offender. The theory itself was introduced by someone (to the best of my recollection) as a member of a law enforcement agency. Despite this, I personally haven't seen additional sources referencing a serial killer specific to this Interstate, which is probably a notability issue for Wikipedia's standards. In my opinion, from what I've learned since adding this theory to WCJD's article, there could be inconsistancies with victimology, based on the age/race of the victims, since many serial killers tend to allign their crimes to a specific victim type. This potentially pokes holes into this theory, and I'm beginning to question whether there actually was an I-45 killer to begin with, as WCJD is the only known victim of Caucasian descent with no evidence of being a prostitute. --GouramiWatcher^Talk 05:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gourami Watcher: Thank you. I live in Texas, not far from Walker County, and the term "I-45 Killer" has been used a lot here. When I searched Wikipedia, all I knew was that I hadn't heard anything about it in awhile, and I was surprised that there wasn't an article about it. A quick DuckDuckGo says that yes, the idea is pretty vague. Even people who use it say it's probably an umbrella name for several killers. There's also conflation of "I-45 killer" with the "Texas Killing Fields," which seems equally squishy. I'm going to dig deeper. I think an I-45 Killer article is needed, if only to highlight its problems. I'm not the only Texan with "I-45 Killer" rolling around their head. -- AmateurHistorian (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent identification

I have a question regarding the recent announcement by the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System that her case has been solved. Does this count as a source? If so, shouldn't it be legitimate to add this to the article? If not, what is the problem with this as a source? Cheers. Fhesse (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A verifiable and reliable source needs to be added.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. That was the point of my question. Why isn't the announcement by the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System that her case has been solved a verifiable and reliable source that her case has been solved? Fhesse (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

An announcement by NamUs that her case has been solved may be a reliable source; where is the announcement article? Sideriver84 (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not an article. NamUs deleted her case file on September 24, and replaced it with the declaration that her case has been solved. https://namus.nij.ojp.gov/case/UP4630 I don't know the exact rules, but isn't that a reliable source that her case has been solved? Fhesse (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

How about adding a note next to the status in the infobox regarding the NamUs update, and using the link provided by Fhesse as the reference?--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I added a short paragraph to the 'ongoing investigation' section of the article since it seemed to be the best place. Hope it makes sense in its current form. Fhesse (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Have to say that I disagree strongly with the repeated removal of the info that NAMUS profile states the case has been revolved. It might be primary, but all of the official law enforcement pages with details on the case are also taken down (NAMUS and the Texas DPS), and the one of the official law enforcement pages (NAMUS, which is also cited in the article for some details) explicitly states that the case has been resolved. To me that seems like a contradiction, or at the very least, a glaring omission. WP:PRIMARY states that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". I don't see an issue with how the info was previously presented. Connormah (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, the recently-removed primary source did not say the case had been solved. Equivamp - talk 22:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the website did explicitly state 'case has been resolved' Fhesse (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, it seems that they've changed the text there, but it did display a note for a few days stating the resolution. Maybe there is an archived version that could be used. Connormah (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That explains it. I thought I had checked it before I had tagged it as needing a non-primary source rather than removing it, but saw that it didn't mention such when I checked again before commenting here. I assumed I had misremembered.

IMO, the fact that the statement was silently retracted so quickly gives me pause to using it as a primary source. Makes it start to veer into OR territory.

I also want to note that the potential for inclusion does not apply to the Facebook link which keeps being inserted, as it fails the reputably published requirement. Equivamp - talk 20:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Whoever included these Facebook references; it wasn't me and I did never bring it up in this dicussion, so I don't know what this comment is about. Fhesse (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we can use the FB source (though it is most likely accurate), but I do think that the Namus one, perhaps with a retroactive retrieval date to when it displayed that message might suffice to state at the very least state that "On [date], the NAMUS page for the decedent stated that the case had been resolved, but no further details were offered.", at least until more info is released. I don't think we'd have this issue if the associated missing persons pages from the agencies were still displaying her info as they had before (sometimes it takes months for an ID to be announced, and the pages are left up until then), but since they are not, I think a note might be warranted. Connormah (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I might also add that now the Doe Network profile (which is cited multiple times in this article) states she has been identified per Namus. Connormah (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

So the Sheriff's office has just announced that they are going to give a press conference on the recent development in WCJD's case, ie. her identification. https://www.khou.com/article/news/investigations/missing-pieces/new-details-1980-murder-case-walker-county-jane-doe/285-0afe5492-12a3-4dbf-a31a-7df9576f78e8. I think as soon as that is done, we can let this issue rest. Fhesse (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Help with properly referencing a source

I found a newspaper article on her case from 10 years ago which contains two pieces of information which I haven't seen anywhere else and therefore would like to add to the article. First, another witness sighting of her talking to some men in a station wagon. Plus, the fact that police suspected one of the Ellis inmates to be the friend she was looking for but ultimately ruled him out (https://www.portasouthjetty.com/articles/cold-case/). My problem is that the police officer providing these statements was not officially a part of her investigation. Instead, he is a retired Houston Police Department homicide investigator who was, as part of a group of volunteers, looking into cold cases for the Walker County Sheriff’s Department. So it's kind of semi-official but not really. Is there a proper way to address this when citing the source? Fhesse (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

For whom may be concerned...

I changed her disappearance date to c. March 9, 1980, supported by this link (https://www.twincities.com/2021/11/12/14-year-old-girl-identified-as-victim-in-1980-texas-cold-case-homicide-had-forest-lake-stillwater-connections/). L'Mainerque (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Deleting the reconstruction

I would like to suggest removing at least one of the reconstructions of her face from the article. Now that her identity is known and we have real photos of her real face, there is no reason for a forensic reconstruction of her face, let alone two of them. I would suggest removing the picture showing her face from the front, as the other at least has the advantage of showing her as the witnesses saw her on the last day. Kjansen86 (talk)