Talk:Texarkana Moonlight Murders

The Phantom Slayer (2014)

I can't find any evidence of this movie existing, but it's listed under "Movies" along with The Town That Dreaded Sundown and its 2014 remake. It's not on IMDB nor do multiple searches for related terms come up with anything. If it isn't sourced or it's somebody's indie film that isn't notable in any capacity, then it should be deleted from this page. 24.85.113.197 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

More work

I will work more on this article when Jim Presley's book comes out in November 2014, so look forward to that. JeremeK (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Article is not written in wiki style, too loose and informal. Definitely needs a clean-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.14.3 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Worked on that. JeremeK (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

Article needs a cleanup... While very detailed, there are sections which are blank. Paris1127 (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Worked/Working on that. JeremeK (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, should merging with Phantom Killer be considered? Paris1127 (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't completed the entry and have stopped working on it since my separation/divorce in July-Dec. 2010. I know it's been two years since I've worked on it. Since then I've gone to school and worked two jobs. I do plan on finishing this article. I'm gonna take some time next month to continue my hard work and research on this and try to write the most complete information on it that I can. I'm sorry for the long wait; even though I've gone through a divorce, I was also worn out from all the research and work I've already put into this; but I will continue to complete this article.

Now about the merge, I am also going to work on the other page exclusive to just the killer alone. I didn't create the Phantom Killer page, but I will rework it so these article won't be similar. This one focuses on the whole subject, while the other will focus on just the killer. Please compare Jason Voorhees and Friday the 13th as well as Freddy Krueger and A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Thanks for any understanding and patience. JeremeK (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. For one, Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees are fictional (thankfully). Secondly, Wikipedia has a trend of, if there are multiple killers involved, grouping the articles together: David and Catherine Birnie, Speed Freak Killers, etc. If only one killer is involved, the article about their crimes is filed under the killer's name: see Gary Leon Ridgway, Dennis Rader, Dennis Nilsen, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc. Even when the killer remains unidentified, there are not two separate articles for the killer him/herself and the killing spree (see Zodiac Killer, Long Island serial killer, Lisbon Ripper, Claremont serial murders, etc), with prime suspects given their own articles in special cases, such as when the prime suspect gets a lot of publicity (see Steven Hatfill). These articles need to be merged. Paris1127 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Although Freddy and Jason are fiction, the Phantom Killer is "fiction" when it comes to The Town That Dreaded Sundown and the play that is based off of the events. Also the "multiple killers" that are grouped together are only because they carried out their violence together and as a group effort. The reason the serial killers are under their name is because those are real identified men who have been caught; but also because I don't think their murder sprees have a name to them such as The Texarkana Moonlight Murders; at least none to my knowledge.

The article for Phantom Killer will not be the same article as this one. It will go into more detail on suspects, the leading suspect, the one represented in the movie and the one in the play. It will not contain the same material as this article. If there's not enough information to make the Phantom Killer an article by itself then a merge will be considered. JeremeK (talk)

Support merge. As with the Zodiac Killer and other examples above, it makes sense to combine the articles on crimes and criminal. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The deleted "expletives"...

Was the description written that way when the person wrote the article? Because I doubt anyone who really cares about swearing will be reading an article about a serial killer. With the exception to the person who deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifreezed Haystack (talk • contribs) 10:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This is JeremeK, starter of the page; yes, the "deleted expletive" is part of the newspaper article. 96.45.237.249 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texarkana Moonlight Murders/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is packed with information and is clearly intensively researched; I really appreciate all your work on it. I do feel like this has some more areas where it needs work to fulfill the Good Article criteria, which I've noted below:

• All quotations need to be followed by an inline citation per criterion 2b. There are many here that don't.
• A second major issue is the level of detail in the article. At 67kb of readable prose, this is extremely long for a minor event. (No disrepect to the victims; I'm just talking on an encyclopedic scale.) To pick one section at random, we don't need the names of the men who found the saxophone, or a quotation of what they said to each other on finding it, or the titles of music found within the case; this discovery doesn't appear to need a full subsection at all. The lengthy descriptions of the investigators, big block quotations of minor press releases, and even the locations of their tombstones are again excessive detail.

At this length, the article becomes difficult to use for all but the most dedicated readers--those willing to spend an hour or more reading it, which isn't the typical Wikipedia user. This is inevitable for a sprawling topic like History of West Africa, but a topic this limited could make far better use of summary style (criterion 3b). Looking over what's here, I would suggest that this article be cut by as much as half.

• Sentences like " A 1945 Texarkana City Directory indicates that the residential development of Beverly stopped in about the 600 block of Richmond road, which means the attack occurred somewhere near Taylor street; contrary to the belief that it happened near the intersection of Richmond and Robison." sound very much like original research. (Also note that this sentence should have a comma rather than a semicolon, which generally requires a complete sentence on both sides).
• Bare URLs should be turned into fuller citations using a template like Template:Cite web.
• External links such as the Google Maps link at "to a Beverly residence at 805 Blanton street" should not be embedded with the article text but moved to the references or external links section.
• For such a lengthy article, it strangely omits information about the lead suspect and other theories about the murders; this is a main aspect that should be covered under criterion 3a. FWIW, I agree with the merge suggestion that the article on the unknown killer should be part of the article on the killings.
• The lead should better summarize the article's contents, and should present no new information (see WP:LEAD).

Since this one seems to require substantial further work, I'm not listing this as a Good Article at this time. I do wish you luck though and hope you'll find some of the above suggestions helpful. Thanks again for your efforts on these famous crimes! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Review response

• I took care of the first bullet.
  
• I disagree with the second bullet. In my opinion, an "encyclopedia" includes comprehensive information on a topic. My goal is to make this article the most definitive account of the subject and get it to "Featured Article" status. The following article is very lengthy; it has reached "FA" status and it is only about a single song: Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)
  
• I took care of the third bullet's suggestion of the semicolon. As for the "original research", this was needed to be done to figure out where the exact location of the crime occurred.
  
• I haven't worked on the fourth bullet yet.
  
• I disagree with the fifth bullet. No one will understand what the link is for and I believe it works well within the text.
  
• As for the sixth bullet, I understand it is missing information. I'm still working on it. That is why I only nominated it for "Good Article" instead of "A" or "Featured". If I had added all this information, I would have nominated it for a higher rank; but I do believe so far, it has reached GA status.
  
• I worked on the last bullet.
  

Thanks for the compliments. I've worked very hard on all of this. JeremeK (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And thank you again for your work! If you disagree with my review, I wouldn't be at all offended if you resubmit the article for a second opinion; GA reviewing is never an exact science. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Title

Why did they change the title from The Phantom killer to this?--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I worked on this article independent of "Phantom Killer". The other article had facts wrong, was too short, and wasn't done very well. I didn't want to fix it and instead wanted to start the article Texarkana Moonlight Murders because that's what the article should be about: the crimes. The other article, "Phantom Killer" sounded like it should've been only about the killer. Eventually my article became comprehensive and the other article was merged with this one. It only made sense. JeremeK (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

New book on prime suspect

Apparently a book has recently been published that concludes that the original; prime suspect was indeed the criminal. The material added to the article here has several problems. I've already removed it twice, but the problems have not been addressed. I've tagged the latest addition for now but it really needs to be looked at. At a minimum the addition needs to be rewritten. Here are some problems I see:

• The book is not sourced. I have verified that it has been published and it's easy to ref it, so this is a minor issue.
• Does not seem neutral. Unsubstantiated WP:Peacock words such as "expert" (the author seems to have researched the book well, but does that make him an expert on the subject?), "conclusive evidence". "extensive research", etc.
• Possible bias on the part of the author. He is reportedly the nephew of the Bowie County Sheriff who was involved in the 1946 case.
• The book was just published this month so it's far too soon to treat this book as the definitive analysis of the case.
• "Recent media interviews conducted in Texarkana shows that a Board of Inquiry may be convened to close the case by stating that Youell Swinney was The Phantom Killer." Unsourced. Possible WP:synthesis
• "Former officer Glen Owens stated in a television interview on Little Rock, Arkansas station KLRT on October 30, 2014 that enough evidence is available to close the case by the Board of Inquiry process." Unsourced. Even if sourced this would seem to be nothing but conjecture on the part of the interviewee. If this is all the evidence for the previous line then both of these lines should go.

It's probably worth mentioning the book, and any new material covered in the book, but I don't think the current approach is right. Don't put this up as the definitive solution to a many-decades-old case. A historian looked at the case, accessed new material, and concluded that the person already identified as the prime suspect did it. Meters (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This is Jereme Kennington (starter and primary author to this article). I've fixed this problem. I'm aware of this new book and have read it. The author states his beliefs and opinions on the evidence that's been around since 1946. He thinks the evidence concludes the case and that it is "cracked". I disagree. I rewrote the opinionated paragraph and put it in a more appropriate location in a neutral point of view. Thanks, Meters. JeremeK (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that I have temporarily protected the page from all edits so that this dispute can be worked out. I've left a note for the absent party to respond here. If consensus is formed before the protection expires, let me know or make a request at WP:RFPP and the protection can be removed. Kuru (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Prohibiting the public's right to know

It is against the public's right to remove content showing that there are people who intend to pursue a Board of Inquiry regarding the Phantom Killer. Your article does nothing to properly inform people on what is going on. Just because you do not believe that a BOI is warranted does not make the issue go away. A Criminal Profiler and retired law enforcement office Glen Owens in addition to a retired local Texas DPS officer, a justice of the peace, and several others are in discussion about carrying out a BOI. Your efforts deny the public to know that a BOI is likely.

Dr. Presley is a documented expert whether you like it or not. Several online reviews have so stated. He is a Professor of History, a proven journalist, and well known for his objectivity in the issues he researches. His book is heavily referenced and has a three page selected bibliography containing a vast array of expert. This is in addition to the people, law enforcement experts, and articles quoted within the context of the book. The public has a right to know. It is important that the public see the published information left intact. If you want to discuss some wording, I'm certainly all ears. But just deleting facts that do not make your vision doesn't make them go away. Clent225 (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia only summarizes reliable sources in a neutral fashion. It does not take one source and say "this is true, everything else is wrong," it take a variety of reliable sources and gives each view due weight. Wikipedia is not a platform to "spread the truth" or "right great wrongs".

All the blue links in my post are to relevant policies and guidelines on those topics. Read them. Your addition to the article used non-neutral language and read like an advertisement, which is why it was removed. If you bothered to read the above posts, you'd see that material from the book has been worked into the article by JeremeK. Do you work for the publisher of the book? We have a right to know. Are you in some way making money off the book? We have a right to know. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Long time follower of the story. Live in Texarkana.

I have had an interest in the Phantom Killer ever since I heard the story of a neighborhood boy shooting my grandmother's front door with his BB gun. It was only a shadow from a tree that the boy saw, but it cost a new window for the door.

I am friends with several past and present law enforcement officers of Bowie and Miller Counties. I am directly related to the late Sheriff Rachael, a Bowie County Sheriff that served after Sheriff Presley. I've heard about this story for years.

That I'm new to Wikipedia rules and methods should not be strange. For years I've been a consumer of Wikipedia, this is my first contribution. I just joined the user group as of yesterday.

I am hearing Law Enforcement and people in law in Texas and Arkansas discuss closing this case by way of Board of Inquiry. It could even be accomplished in the setting of a Justice of the Peace setting. The BOI has been reported in the Texarkana Gazette and online from Little Rock TV Station KLRT. I added the video link as a reference in my post.

The material worked into the article by JeremeK leaves much information unspoken. The new book by Dr. Presley contradicts some of JeremeK assertions, and I don't think that one paragraph representing a well research book is too extravagant. I believe that some of the assertions of JeremeK are misleading to the people that read this article.

I have no financial interest in this or any other book, nor am I an author who intends to write any book. I'm just trying to get the facts accurately represented in this forum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clent225 (talk • contribs)

As I said earlier, Wikipedia goes with due weight. Let's say you have 4 books that say "A," 2 books that say "B," and only 1 book that says "C." An article with due weight would say "AAAABBC." It would be creating false balance (not allowed) to have the article say "ABC," and undue weight (definitely not allowed) to have the article say "ABCCCC."

This not only includes article coverage, but presentation. If 2 sources says "A, not B," and only 1 source says "B, not A," the article will give B less certainty no matter how sure the author of the B source was. In some drastic cases (say, twenty source that say "A, not B" for each "B" source), we'll omit "B" entirely.

In other words, a single source does not change the whole article. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The context of "The Phantom Killer" is not single sourced

A reading of "The Phantom Killer" shows multiple sources much like "All the President's Men" showed multiple sources. The quotes come from actual law enforcement reports not listed by JeremeK. This is an indictment on the research of JeremeK. There is a reporting in this article of a teenage nicknamed "Doodie," and his sad tale is reported by JeremeK about as much as Swinney was, even though law enforcement dismissed "Doodie" as the murderer quickly. I have read some of the referenced articles included in "The Phantom Killer." There are police reports, not even alluded to by JeremeK, that point to Swinney. http://www.fox16.com/story/d/story/the-phantom-killer-part-2/14288/c-b_LNWyoUynxMvc9SVEgg Swinney's wife's statements would now be allowed in a Board of Inquiry Hearing. It is a different standard of proof. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in BOI. This case could be closed in the not too distant future. All information that I have tried to be included in this article. http://www.fox16.com/story/d/story/web-extra-extented-interview-with-glen-owens-crimi/55713/3QA-qQvQFEOy61joNjQnvg JeremeK wants to suppress that information. Maybe it should be considered what his motivations are, who is he helping.Clent225 (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of information not in this article. I can't write a novel on Wikipedia. I wrote 99% of the Texarkana Moonlight Murders article. I am not trying to suppress any information, but rather put as much as I can in a neutral point-of-view. I want the truth out there too, and Jim's book is not proof that Swinney is guilty. Just because you're convinced by the book doesn't mean it has solved the case. I believe a man (Youell) is innocent until proven guilty, especially beyond reasonable doubt; which I don't think Presley does. I've read the book. I received the Advanced Readers Copy months before it's release. I've also met Jim personally and will do so again soon. I also have information that hasn't been made public yet that might prove Swinney's innocence. I've researched these crimes extensively over the past four years. I was in the Killer Legends documentary. I started the Facebook group "Texarkana Phantom Killer Theorum". I was one of three people who put together a public forum entitled "The Phantom Killer: Facts, Theories, Folklore and Fiction" and which I was a speaker of. I was in the newspaper which can be seen here: http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2014/11/09/local-expert-discusses-phantom-killer-at-824929.php

I think Glen Owen has made comments that are completely false. The murders didn't stop once Swinney was arrested, as he had stated. Swinney was arrested July 15. The last murder attributed to the Phantom was May 3. The murders stopped way before Swinney was arrested. Also, he said that Peggy knew too much information. Peggy stated things that were already known to the public, just more convincingly. I have an FBI file that Jim does not mention in his book. JeremeK (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Author not getting it

I disagree with your statement that you are not suppressing information. If your ear was to the ground you would know that the people are discussing an inquiry around Texarkana. Dr. Jim Presley's book has summed up the information enough to get a lot of people talking on both sides of the Stateline. An inquiry is at hand, whether you allow it to be known in this article or not.

The Texarkana Gazette did a series of seven articles introduced by Dr. Presley, each one declaring him an imminent expert on the facts of the case. The first can be read at http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2014/10/25/gruesome-story-began-without-a-hint-of-t-753545.php I believe Dr. Presley's book has such accuracy from my checking his bibliography that I believe him over what you say are facts. His statements check out every time I read the content. Swinney was the Phantom Killer.

I read the post you submitted from the Texarkana Gazette. While I was there I decided to search for information on the forum you helped arrange at the high school. I was surprised that there was an entire episode about "Doodie" Tennison. I was also surprised that there was one comment where you said, "“One thing I know is that there are other potential suspects,” Tennison said. Those other suspects include his first cousin once-removed, H.B. “Doodie” Tennison. “The main thing about H.B. is that prior to 1971 he had been the most highly publicized suspect,” he said."" http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2014/11/07/free-public-forum-on-phantom-killer-case-44515.php Curious, I didn't find this information about your association included in your references.

Is that what this is all about? You want your first-cousin, once-removed, in the running for the title of Phantom Killer. Is that why "Doodie" is so prominent in your article, and why you need Dr. Presley and Glen Owens and the others to be so wrong.

Dr. Presley explains the timeline between May 3rd and July 15th. He details in his book what happened on May 4th to Swinney and why he changed his routine. Swinney didn't get arrested until he did something ignorant in Atlanta, Texas with his stolen car.

Peggy Swinney told Sheriff Presley about a little address book from the Spring Lake Park murders that was only know to a handful of law enforcement officers. The book and other facts were not know to the public. Your statements are false.

Back to the forum you helped to put together. I see that for 30 minutes there was "Ann Winger, A Report on Paranormal Activities at the Tennison Mansion." http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2014/11/06/texas-high-to-host-free-forum-on-phantom-288885.php Did she contact "Doodie?" I called a friend from Texas High. Your forum had a lot of empty seats. I went to Dr. Presley's meeting put on by Texarkana Library. The room was packed at the Cabe Center with people from all over the United States.

Thank you for pointing me to the Gazette. I may not win the public's right to know the facts in this forum, but I know what you're about now. Clent225 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You are obviously not getting it. What credentials do you have other than reading a book? Doodie is not my first cousin, once removed, he is my friend's. Doodie's cousin does not believe Doodie was completely ruled out, as he has uncovered much information that hasn't been revealed to the public until the forum. The seats were "mostly empty" because it was a much bigger venue. If our forum was at a little church, I'm sure it would've looked full too. Glen Owens is wrong. I'm not "about" anything except keeping a man innocent from being brandished as the Phantom. You tell me all the times Swinney has been arrested and what they were for? Non of them are violent, I assure you. There are things in Presley's book that seems wrong and I've written some of them down in my review of his book on Amazon. Glen Owens spews the same false information I've heard for many years. Peggy did not say anything about a date or address book. She was asked a leading question in which she responded that something was taken from his pocket and thrown in the bushes. There is no record of this! Only varying statements from a few officers. The datebook was found by Sheriff Presley; the datebook was found by a Texas Ranger; the datebook was found by the abandoned car; the datebook was found by Martin's body. I challenge you or anyone else, including Presley and Owen to prove what facts she knew that she couldn't have already known. Everything I've ever heard that she "knew" was already known to the public at the time of her statements. Where the bodies were found, how many times they were shot, where the abandoned car was found, where the saxophone was found. All of these were already published in the newspapers before she had given her statements. There are also facts about Doodie that you nor the public know about until the forum. The evidence for Doodie is more compelling than Swinney's. It's something I and this relative have been working on and it's something I haven't put on Wikipedia yet. The video evidence can be found on YouTube if you search Phantom Killer Suspect Doodie.

By the way, the FBI files I have that are not mentioned in Presley's book, claim that Peggy was telling a lie and it provides a letter she sent to her parents. There's a reason he was never identified as the Phantom, Clent. There's not enough solid evidence, even in Presley's book. It's sad that he's convincing people like you and Owen. JeremeK (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Article is agenda ridden

After reading your last post and rereading your article, I can see that that the article is slanted against poor ol' Doodie as the Phantom Killer. The argument that "Doodie" did it is beyond ridiculous. He was just a poor little mixed up kid without the actual opportunity to commit these murders. The statement of your friend in the Texarkana Gazette shows that he is upset that the articles by Dr. James Presley way back in 1971 did not point to his "Doodie." Dr. Presley's articles from 1971 rightfully removed "Doodie" from the radar. That removed your friend's claim of notoriety, and I doubt that he likes it. Your statement "If our forum was at a little church, I'm sure it would've looked full too" is very telling on you. The Cabe Center is no little church, I was there. You are full of misrepresentations.

You think because you do not have the information that Dr. Presley's research gave him for his book that his writings are beneath yours. The errors are yours. Your representation of Peggy Swinney's visit to the crime scene is atrocious and convenient for your leanings. Glenn Owen's comments are backed up by serial killer experts documented in Presley's book. I have read many of the documented articles of "The Phantom Killer" and it's your writings that are lacking. You merely rework articles from the Texarkana Gazette and its old partner the Texarkana Daily News. Your reference list is amazingly non-diversified. Dr. Presley's bibliography shows a wide variety of creditable sources from Texas and Arkansas as well as from around the United States, not just from the Texarkana Gazette.

Since your hands are not clean and unbiased from your friend in this, and the article has an agenda outside reality, I no longer want to be associated with this garbage in any way whatsoever. It's an article that is mostly derivative of the work of others and contains a most noticeable slant. Even your tombstone photographs cannot replace the actual photos of the victims, the actual crime scenes photos, and the actual murderer as Dr. Presley's book gives us. No, that took hard dedicated actual work.

I will advise you that I will attempt to forward your statements about Dr. Presley and Mr. Owens to people who can make Dr. Presley and Mr. Owens aware of what you have said about them here. I have already completed the copy and paste to a Word document.

Your an agenda hack and a "Doodie" fiend. I don't want to be associated with this article, and I hereby cease to try to correct the leanings of this article. The insertion of one paragraph of actual crime researched truth from Dr. Presley's book, as I attempted to add to this article, under a willingness to compromise the choice of words, cannot save this article. It's a bridge too far, and I've got better things to do.Clent225 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm only halfway sorry to say that you're an idiot. FYI, I do not believe Swinney NOR Doodie is the Phantom. The article is not slanted towards Doodie nor is it slanted at all. It wasn't slanted before and it's not slanted now. Unlike your recent edit to the article, the article is NEUTRAL as it's supposed to be. Are you mad that YOUR agenda isn't being "published" on Wikipedia? Neither I nor my friend believe that Doodie is the Phantom. I'm not claiming that he is in the article either, as you have done with Swinney. My friend is only showing the reasons why he should not be ruled out; because previous conclusions are faulty. Ballistics tests were performed on guns that Doodie may have had access to, but that doesn't prove anything, because they weren't the actual guns he may have used! Swinney's prints didn't match any of the latents and neither did Doodie's. My friend is not upset about anything. He's simply pointing out that everything that "ruled out" Doodie is faulty, and if you would watch his presentation, you would find that out. My friend didn't have "notoriety" and did not find out about his cousin until '95, in which he wanted to look into more. I do not believe Presley's writings are beneath mine. You sir, know nothing about these cases except from a book you recently read. One of the major "experts" that Presley went to was on TEENAGE killers. This is not efficient for 29 year-old Swinney! I am restricted on Wikipedia on references, you bigot. You want to know my research? OK, I've not only read pretty much every single article you can find on the Phantom Killer, but also talked to Presley (who you say is credible), I've also talked to family members of Starks and Mary Larey and James Hollis. I've talked to family members of Tillman Johnson and of course Bill Presley as well as Sheriff Davis. Again, what credentials do YOU HAVE INSTEAD OF READING A BOOK? I want to place photos on Wikipedia, but there are copyright issues to deal with!

If you would be so kind to actually write the things in this article that prove Swinney was the killer and not your opinion about the book convincing you, go ahead. Write them right here on the Talk page. Explain from the book what proves Swinney to be guilty. Do it. Nobody wants to hear that Presley's book convinced you or that it claims Swinney is the killer, I want you to tell me exactly what the book says that proves it. If Presley's book proves it, you should have no problem doing this! If you succeed, I will gladly let you rewrite this "slanted" article all by yourself! JeremeK (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys! WP:Assume good faith, WP:No personal attacks! And this site does not accept or use original research. What matters is citing reliable sources. If a single source is countered or unsupported by other sources, it receives less weight and certainty. Credentials are irrelevant, what matters is citing sources with WP:DUE weight. We are not here to "prove" anything! Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have an agenda here, or even an opinion on the case. The article as it stands does contain more detail than is warranted in some areas, but it does not seem to me to be slanted to any particular view. I was simply attempting to address some problematic additions when I started these discussions. The new book sounds like it will be a good source for the article, but taking an "all or nothing" edit war approach to adding the proposed material is not productive. User:JeremeK's addition is a good start. It shouldn't be in the lead only, and can be expanded somewhat in the body. The issue of the board of enquiry and closure of the case should be left out for now. We don't know that a board will be called, and we don't know what it will conclude if and when it is called. Meters (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the book is to be referenced and if this Clent guy would hold his high horses, I was going to get to that. I've pointed this out on this talk page towards the top back in March of this year! The book has only been officially out for three days. If this Clent fellow could hold his horses, and not have the page blocked from editing, maybe the article will see these references! I'm a very busy person and I don't think three days is too long without having it referenced on Wikipedia. I have absolutely NO agenda. I'm not trying to prove anything. I simply report journalistically as I always have towards this article. I believe it is well balanced and neutral. I do not hold any certain opinion, belief or conclusion on this case, other than there's no efficient evidence to say the case is "cracked". I know a Texarkana Gazette editor who has always leaned towards Swinney being the culprit and he doesn't believe that Jim's book is "conclusive" enough to say with absolute certainty that Swinney is the Phantom.... JeremeK (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

An objective LOOK at the new BOOK

James Presley is indeed an expert (which I have never questioned). His research is very impressing. He has done an amazing and thorough job. However, this does not mean that there aren't errors in his book. He claims, "Sometime over the years, decades afterward, far from Texarkana, someone labeled the crimes the 'Moonlight Murders,' However, news from the United Press covered a story in July 1946 that a man was picked up in Florida who had left Texarkana because he did not want to become a suspect in the "'moonlight' murders" there, as can be found in the July 14, 1946 issues of The Lincoln Star, Nebraska State Journal and Lubbock Avalanche Journal. The couple of the first double murder, Richard Griffin and Polly Ann Moore, are said to have been last seen around 10:30 p.m. on Saturday March 23, 1946 from multiple sources. The author writes things they were doing until 2:00 a.m. that Sunday morning and even writes what happened when the murderer approached them. This is information that can't be known. All sources except James' book, including FBI files, say that Polly Ann Moore was found in the back seat of Griffin's car. James claims that she was found in the front seat. It may be true, but it is very questionable.

Moving on to the second half of the book which deals with the only prime suspect Youell Swinney, there is no new evidence presented to prove the man's guilt. All evidence in James' book is old evidence that has existed through all these years since 1946. This evidence is exclusively based on information gathered from the suspect's wife, Peggy, who was arrested June 28. She claimed in four statements that Youell was the one who killed Paul Martin and Betty Jo Booker. She allegedly told officers what happened, with details only someone who was there could know. Can her statements be proven? Officers were convinced from circumstantial evidence because she "knew" where the bodies were found, where the car was left abandoned, how many times the victims were shot, and where Betty Jo's missing saxophone was located. Two other pieces of evidence which James believes "confirms" Peggy's story, is a datebook that Bowie County Sheriff Bill Presley (James' Presley's uncle) found at the crime scene but told no one about, yet Peggy said it was thrown into the bushes. Also, there was a shirt found in Youell's possession that had the laundry mark "S-T-A-R-K", reminiscent of the Phantom's last victim, Virgil Starks. There was slag in the pocket of this shirt which were similar to the slag found in Starks' welding shop.

First of all, the information on where the bodies of Booker and Martin were found, how many times they were shot and where the car was found abandoned, was all published in the same April 15 edition of the Texarkana Gazette and Daily News, over two months before Peggy's arrest. Peggy gave her first statement on July 23, almost a month after her arrest. This statement mentioned nothing about the Phantom crimes. The next two statements were taken at two different times that following day. The saxophone was only mentioned in the first one taken that day, but said nothing about where it was. The missing saxophone was a piece of evidence Lone Wolf Gonzaullas tried keeping secret, but the information was published in the Gazette at the end of April, many weeks before Peggy's arrest. The fourth statement was taken almost exactly four months later on November 22. This time she mentions what happened to the saxophone. Curiously, the missing saxophone was discovered and its details were published in the Texarkana Gazette four weeks earlier on where it was found. James Presley states on page 231 in his book that her statement meshed exactly with the details of its discovery even though she wasn't informed of them the month before. He provides no proof of this statement, and I find it hard to believe that she talks about the saxophone's location a month after its discovery and only after she had been in custody for five months, without having seen or heard of its discovery in some way. She could have had several ways of finding out, whether she overheard someone talking about it, or if she was asked leading questions, or through letters that were sent to her, or if she had seen it published somewhere. Regardless, everything she spoke of was already known to the public. There's absolutely no information she gave that she couldn't have known through what was already published and/or from possible leading questions. She had also repudiated her statements (as noted by the FBI), and sent a letter to her parents explaining that the officers weren't believing her story and that she felt she needed to lie about Swinney killing the couple because that's what they wanted to hear, but she couldn't mindfully do that without feeling guilty from having an innocent man sent to the electric chair. She led officers all the way to Dallas because she said that's where Swinney burned the clothing he wore. It turned out that she lied about it. Her story/testimony is not reliable nor is it proof that Swinney was guilty.

The datebook that Sheriff Presley apparently found was not "confirmed" by Peggy. He asked her if Swinney had taken anything else out of the boy's pocket (a leading question), she apparently said that he took out some "papers or stuff". Presley asked what did Swinney do with them. She said he threw them into the bushes (could have been a lucky guess). This sounds amazing, but in 1996, in the 50th anniversary article published in the Gazette, James Presley writes that his uncle was not convinced that Swinney was their man. If this datebook was quite the evidence, why wouldn't he be convinced? This is contradictory of Jim's statements in his book that his uncle was convinced of this man's guilt on page 242. In FBI files, Sheriff Presley and Max Tackett (the arresting officer of the lead suspect) sent off thousands of fingerprints to be ran against the latent prints found at the crime scene many years later. If these two officers were so sure of this man's guilt, why did they have thousands of other men's fingerprints checked? The datebook is only mentioned in one FBI file out of a thousand, and it wasn't even about the address book. There are no other official documents on the address book. None. It has barely gotten any mention. There is also no evidence that the datebook was checked for fingerprints -- why not? Sheriff Presley (who apparently found it) never officially mentioned the book. We do not know if it was indeed Martin's datebook. This datebook was apparently found in the bushes somewhere near his parked car. There are no details of confirmation that it was Martin's book either by family, friends or authorities. It could've been trashed by someone else before it was found at the scene. We only hear about this book from hearsay accounts. The datebook wasn't mentioned until 1971 by Max Tackett. He said that the information had been gathered by Texas Rangers (not Presley). There are too many inconsistencies surrounding this discovery. Who found it (Bill Presley or Texas Rangers)? Where was it found (by Martin's car or where Youell changed his clothes)? In summary, not much is known about the address book, it was never officially mentioned by Bill Presley and out of thousands of records and documents, it's only barely mentioned in passing in one FBI file. It's also strange that it was never checked for fingerprints, and despite James Presley's book which claims officers were convinced of Swinney's guilt, Bill Presley and the Texas Rangers were NOT convinced of his guilt (according to what James Presley wrote in 1996 AND FBI files).

About the shirt found in Swinney's possession, it was a shirt given to the authorities by Swinney's brother-in-law. This shirt's laundry mark was fading and it wasn't sure if it read S-T-A-R-K or S-T-A-R-R. Also, if it was really Virgil Starks shirt, why didn't it have all six letters? Max Tackett contradicts this fact when he stated that the shirt was found in a motel room that Swinney stayed in. Swinney claimed that the shirt was stolen in Oklahoma to which Tackett noted that he couldn't disprove that statement. Peggy claimed that she was with a man named Starkes (with an "e") earlier that year. Also, out of all of the things that could've been stolen (Starks' car, Mrs. Starks' purse with money and jewels found on the bed), why was a workshirt stolen? Wouldn't that have been too hot of an item to steal?

Another tidbit worth mentioning is that James Hollis (the first victim) said he couldn't really see the man (didn't even notice the mask). He was then beaten fairly quickly after the encounter began. Mary, who saw the man assaulting Jimmy, saw the mask, and had a more personal encounter with him when he was on top of her sexually assaulting her. She claimed her attacker was black, even though Jimmy believed he was white. I think Mary's description would be more accurate since she wasn't blinded by the flashlight or beaten soon afterwards. She had a more up-close encounter than Hollis. Her perception could have betrayed her, but Swinney did not have a dark complexion. There simply is not enough evidence to conclude Swinney's guilt or to state that he is indeed the Phantom or to say the case is "cracked".

There is only circumstantial evidence on Swinney and just not enough to say that he definitely is the Phantom, or that the case is "cracked." JeremeK (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Kennington is just blowing smoke

Mr. Kennington is blowing smoke to try to obscure the facts. I had previously divorced myself from this page, however, a friend told me about the goof ball accusations going in here since I left several days ago, so it was suggested that I should go back in and respond to the misrepresentations.

As I told Mr. Kennington in an Amazon comment under an Amazon review, I have a lot of well educated friends, and Dr. James Presley is one of them. Mr. Kennington has written that he knows Dr. Presley as well. A lot of people in Texarkana know Dr. Presley and his family. I am in no way in the employ of Dr. Presley, nor have I ever been. This is just one of the many misrepresentations that Mr. Kennington makes.

I have had the privilege to see and hear some of Dr. Presley's work product. Along with many of his other friends, I am privy to information not included in his book. But I will not be revealing any of Dr. Presley's work product, just discussing what is already published in his book. I would say that if all the relevant information was printed from Dr. Presley's work product, the book would likely be more than twice as large.

As to my five-star review, a lot of people have written five-star reviews of Dr. Presley's book in various book forums, not just me. His book is receiving great reviews from all around the country. But there are those who are trying to use this forum to put forward their agenda, and I decided it should not go unchallenged.

I will return to doing other things. If you want to listen to the goof balls, at least you have been warned. They even included a séance specialist to talk, at their lowly populated forum, about paranormal activities at "Doodies" old house in Texarkana. http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2014/11/07/free-public-forum-on-phantom-killer-case-44515.php

Mr. Kennington's good friend publicly touts his relationship to "Doodie." (from article referenced above) The Texarkana Gazette article states "After an hour lunch, Tennison will discuss another suspect, H.B. “Doodie” Tennison (1 p.m.), and then aspects of the investigation conducted on the case." "Ann Winger reports on paranormal activity at the Tennison mansion." The Texarkana Gazette article later quotes Mr. Kennington's good friend as saying, "“One thing I know is that there are other potential suspects,” Tennison said. Those other suspects include his first cousin once-removed, H.B. “Doodie” Tennison. “The main thing about H.B. is that prior to 1971 he had been the most highly publicized suspect,” he said."

"Doodie" was a teenage boy at the time of the murders, and he didn't have the opportunity to commit the crimes. The various law enforcement agencies discounted his suicide statements of committing the acts. Is it really necessary for Mr. Kennington to commit so much space for one mixed-up teenager? Does it really deserve any mention at all in a Wikipedia article when there is no real attachment to the crimes?

The 1971 event that Mr. Tennison refers to are the articles that Dr. Presley wrote for the Texarkana Gazette on the 25th anniversary of the Phantom Killings. Do you hear the ax grinding? Why would it bother a relative to have their relative exonerated?

I'm just trying to protect the reputation of a good book written by Dr. James Presley from those that need to discredit it to put forward their vision. It appears that the goof balls are after notoriety since earned fame continues to elude them. They have not yet accomplished work that shows them approaching the level of expertise as that which has been earned by Dr. Presley. 173.185.43.243 (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk about blowing smoke... Ann Winger is not a seance specialist. She wanted to speak and so it happened whether I wanted her to or not. Doesn't mean I agree with anything she says. Doesn't mean I believe in ghosts, because I don't. I don't see why this is relevant anyways. You are full of accusations and assumptions and that's it. You keep saying we have an agenda, but we don't. Could you please tell me more about this agenda and what it entails, because I have no idea. If you would watch the video I sent, you would see that everything that has been "discounted" about Doodie has been challenged and shown to have false conclusions. There is not that much space for Doodie. Most of it is simply revealing the things he wrote. Of course it deserves attention, as it's mentioned in several other work on the Phantom, including Presley's book. It's not bothering Mr. Tennison to have his relative exonerated. He's simply showing the fautly police work that went into them discounting his relative. If you would watch the video, you will see how. You make all these claims but you don't prove anything other than the fact that you know how to whine and call people goofballs. I'm sure there is a lot of material James left out of his book, and some of that includes reports of doubt from Max Tackett and a letter that was intercepted by authorities that Peggy sent to her parents explaining that no one believes her story so she might as well lie about Swinney because that's what they want to hear, but that she can't mindfully do that because she will be sending an innocent man to the chair. This is a letter of her handwriting and her grammar, which matches nothing like the "Statements" attributed to her. Prove something, otherwise, please shut up. I have put forth evidence on the objectives I have with his book, yet all you do is give your opinions about how it's a good book, James is an expert, the book is truth, blah-blah-blah. Prove it. You've still yet to do that!

PS Please don't respond unless you can actually prove something. Maybe you can prove your accusation that I "misrepresent" the facts. Show me how I'm wrong about the things I've said in the above Objective LOOK at the new BOOK. JeremeK (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watts Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)