Talk:Wineville Chicken Coop murders

General style of this article

I find this article difficult to understand and confusing to read. For example, in the section "Murders", it states "The Northcotts fled to Canada and were arrested near Vernon, British Columbia." This is the first mention that there were more than one person by the name of Northcott involved. The article goes on to mention a grandmother and a mother of the primary murderer. I feel this article needs to be rewritten but I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the subject to attempt this. Do other editors agree that a general cleanup tag is needed here? Perhaps a "confusing" box? Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to Wbejjani's request for 'citation proof'

This response is directed to Wbejjani and the paragraph 'Partial Body Evidence' that wbejjani suggests requires a 'citation'.

Wbejjani has requested a citation to prove that the State of California concluded that Walter Collins, the 2 Winslow Brothers and the headless Mexican were in fact murdered.

Wbejjani says: "This assumes that definitive proof was obtained by the State of California, but it does not mention when and how. Other accounts indicate that the fate of some of the boys, particularly Walter Collins was not settled due to the many versions that the suspects gave of his fate."

It is my hope that Wbejjani will respond her to their request for a citation to further clarify their question.

Just what is it that Wbejjani is requesting? Does he/she want to know the dates that the convictions took place? Does Wbejjani want to know how the State of California concluded that the Northcott's were guilty? Wbejjani goes on to state that "other accounts indicate that the fate of some of the boys (which boys are you speaking of Wbejjani; there were only 4 boys involved in murders at Wineville)?

The fact of the matter is this, and it requires no "citation".

The State of California did obtain definitive proof as to the murders of the Winslow boys, Walter Collins and the Headless Mexican, as written in the the historical book on this matter by James Jeffrey Paul. The page the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders is heavily footnoted with references as to the whom and when the murders took place. Seriously, all wbejjani has to do is to read the book by Paul, or read the page the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.

The State of California presented definitive proof and it was reviewed by a jury of Gordon Northcott's peers. Gordon was convicted of murder and hanged for this crime. His mother, Sarah Northcott confessed as well. The court's testimony star witness, Sanford Clark was the only State's witness and his vivid and descriptive accounts of the murders of the 4 boys, leaves nothing in doubt, except for doubters.

I would welcome additional evidenciary matter subimtted by wbejjani, as would the Riverside Historical society in this matter, especially if Wbejjani has information that would cast new light on the murders of Walter Collins, the Headless Mexican and the Winslow boys. Especially give that Wbejjani has stated: "Other accounts indicate that the fate of some of the boys, particularly Walter Collins was not settled".

If Wbejjani has additional evidence, then let him/her present it here for debate and discussion.

It is not up to us to prove to wbejjani that the State of California was correct. That is the historical record. If Wbejjani is going to question the findings of the State, then, it is incumbent upon Wbejjani to make their case as to why the State of California got it incorrect, therefore wrong.

The State of California convicted Gordon Northcott for the murder of the Winslow Brothers and the headless Mexican. That is historical record. The State of California IS the definitive proof in this matter. To suggest that just because Gordon Northcott was executed and that his mother, Sarah Louise Northcott confessed to the murder of Walter Collins and that the State's sole witness to the murders of 4 boys was lying, is just preposterous.

For Wbejjani to suggest that the convicted murderer and his mother were telling the truth because they gave so many varying versions of what happened to the boys is not only silly, but completely defies the Historical Record in this matter. The State of California concluded its case against Sarah and George Northcott with convictions and 1 execution.

It is preposterous that someone can place a citation on this matter, just because they don't bother to read the evidence in the matter and expect other people to have to prove it to them. We don't have to prove anything. The State of California is what we are referring to in this case, and they proved everything that Webjjani is refuting with no substantiating evidence to bring forth up to this point in time.

I would like to hear just what it is that Wbejjani means when he/she states that there are 'other accounts that the fate of the boys, in particular Walter Collins was not settled.' Surely wbejjani is not suggesting that the Winslow brothers and Walter Collins were not murdered???

It is critically important that people reading the wiki-page for The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders do not get this wiki page confused with the film Changeling by JMS, directed by Clint Eastwood. Too many folks think that the film Changeling is the historical reference in the matter of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders,which is absolultely not true. The film Changeling, is a fictional film based on parts of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, but it does not represent the historical record in hardly any way shape or form. To suggest that the film The Changeling represents the historical record for the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders is as silly as suggesting that the film JFK by Oliver Stone accurately depicts what happened regarding the JFK assasination.

I encourage Wbejjani to bring forth their case as to why the State of California was wrong in their convictions, and what Wbejjani can bring forth as proof to refute the case that the State of California had against Gordon and Sarah Northcott. Beaconmike (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The finding

In 1997 Christina Colin's found her missing son Walter in the national park of canda but unfortunatle he was dead their was parts of his body dogged near the big town tree Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.161.21 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do we allow nonsensical statements such as the above to remain on the Talk Page? They are childish and high-schoolish in nature and offer absolutely no sources of proof, just simply wild supposition that has nothing to do with the historical record. Can we eliminate the above post from the talk page? The Finding? Beaconmike (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A fairly confusing article

The article is pretty hard to follow. Some issues:

• The entire "Murders" section reads like there are key parts of it missing. It seems to be more about Sanford Clark than it is about the murders, and confusingly, it seems to focus on the events that took place after the murders -- much of which should be under the "Aftermath" heading.
• Much of the information that should probably be in the "Murders" section -- or some section before the "Aftermath" section, anyway -- now seems to be under "Involved Parties."
• The whole "changeling" aspect of the story -- the purported Walter Collins -- which is surely one of the more famous aspects of these events and rather central to it all -- is not referred to at all until you get to the "Christine and Walter Collins" section of the article. Walter is mentioned before this, but there's no suggestion that there was anything unclear or dramatic about the fact that he'd been murdered. When you hit that section, it feels like something that comes completely out of the left field.
• In general, the chronology is hard to follow. For instance, it's not at all clear when Sanford's sister visited the farm. Reading the beginning of the article, you get the impression that it happened very soon after Sanford was taken to Wineville, but this is unlikely to be the case, as apparently Sanford's abuse had been ongoing for a while, and several murders had already occurred with him at the farm. The lack of dates (or even years) makes it particularly hard to comprehend.

I don't know the case at all beyond what I've read here, and I'm hesitant to start messing with the article myself without having a good understanding of the events. -- 85.76.18.89 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Best to leave the article alone, until you have read the real gold standard for this page. James Jeffrey Paul: Nothing is Strange with you. A detailed and incredibly informative book that was written years prior to the film Changeling coming onto the scene. The author had spent about 7 years gathering and researching this information about the same time he heard of the film being released. He rushed his book into print to capitalize on the publicity. The film is one thing and this page regarding the historical facts of Wineville are a different matter. Yes, the page is confusing when you read it, but the fact of the matter is, is that the page reflects the historical accuracy.

1) Regarding Jessica, (from recollection), Sanford was on the farm for about 6-12 months and he was being forced to write letters (by Gordon Northcott) back to his family in Canada that were just too syrupy for his sister to believe. She became suspicious and decided to travel from Canada to see her younger brother Sanford. Late one night, Sanford revealed to her the horrors that he was being put through and what he had seen. She very quickly went back to Canada and Sanford was to flee as well, but events fell apart before Sanford could flee. Jessica wrote to immigration authorities alerting them of the horrendous crimes that were being comitted at Wineville, which became the ultimate downfall for Gordon and his mother.

2) Not quite sure what you mean regarding your comments regarding Walter Collins? Maybe a more specific question would be useful

3)The chronology, yes it is a mess generally. You have to understand though that this page, is still historically accurate, even though the sections are probably out of order and others could be combined. The one thing I have learned about this page, is that there are several key contributors whom have made the page to read the historical facts, and not the film versionl, which is not historical specifically, but more generally. Various authors of this page, have constructed it and over the few years ,this page has grown to reflect many controversial issues. When one tries to change a section or put it in another place, some of the original authors get upset and it has to be worked out and negotiated on this talk page. It is a long and arduous process. I agree with you about the lack of cohesiveness of the paragraphs, but they are all negotiated out over the few years with varying authors. It takes compromise to be forced to leave certain sections in the place that they are. Just remember, that this page has struggled mightily to reflect the historical record, rather than what the film said was a true story. Read the book for the true historical record on this matter. Then compare the book to the page and suggest changes where you think appropriate on this page. Beaconmike (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)