Talk:Cheshire murders

Dispute

Why is Hayes listed as having children yet Komisjaresky has no listing when the texts exchanged between the two have Komisjaresky stating he is "putting the kids to bed"? Can we clarify if he has children or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.98.136 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Komisarjevsky has (at least) one daughter. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Image request

{{reqphoto}}

 DoneMy76Strat 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the images are currently subject to deletion for a lack of proper license. Therefor the 'done mark' is rather tentative at this point.My76Strat 15:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a photo of the victims into this article? They are also important in this story. Is that possible? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

I agree and believe it may be possible under a claim of fair use, I will pursue this possibility and post an image if such becomes available.My76Strat 17:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Great ... thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

History

A previous article about one of the victims was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayley Petit WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Is Hayes notable for anything besides the murders? Perhaps this article can be reframed to address the crime (Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders, or something along those lines) as is common with such incidents, ie Murder of Eve Carson, Murder of Meredith Kercher, and many others. Grsz¹¹ 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a bit surprised that the crime itself lacks an article. Another horrific Connecticut incident, the August Hartford Distributors shooting, does have one, so I see no reason why the Cheshire crimes should not. As for why this article about one of the perpetrators exists, I suppose it's because the crime he committed, as well as his trial and sentencing, was widely covered in Connecticut media and also got some attention by national media (I can attest to seeing it on the Fox News Channel, but I'm sure there were others). Likewise, Joshua Komisarjevsky will probably get his own article once he is (almost assuredly) convicted next year. Killers who attract media coverage seem to get articles; Michael Ross is another Connecticut example, though he is also notable for being the first person executed in Connecticut since the death penalty was reinstated. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, as I was reading this article today. As this article is starting to expand, it is starting to sound more about the crime itself, and less about the biography of Steven Hayes. Perhaps this article should be renamed as "Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders" (or something similar) ... or perhaps a new article can be started on the crime itself. Much of the material in this present article belongs in an article about the crime incident, but not necessarily in an article on Steven Hayes. Thoughts? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

I dont know about the rest of you but I personally feel like this particular person himself deserves a own article like this one, and the case itself crime itself also deserves an own article. Both the crime and the person in questio has recieve alot of international and national attention so I do think that they are both inside the lines of inclusion on Wikipedia. I would support a Petit family home invasion article or something similar. Plus the current Steven Hayes article. The first focusing on the crime itself and the other focusing on Steven Hayes and some about the crime ofcourse.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically the current Steven Hayes article can stay as it is currently. And a new article like the one suggested could go more in-depth of the crime committed. Sounds good to me.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that Hayes only is notable, because of the crime, therefore it would be entirely possible (and appropriate) to merge his content into an article of the crime. This article contains no biographical information, only focusing on his crime, which is completely inappropriate for a BLP. Grsz¹¹ 15:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't we have a consistent way of doing things? Look at John Albert Gardner; the victim articles (Chelsea King, Murder of Chelsea King, Amber Dubois) were redirected there. Someone proposed makinga Murders of Chelsea King and Amber Dubois article instead, but that hasn't happened yet. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that in the case you mention, Gardner is encyclopedically notable for at least two things (two separate crimes). In this case, Hayes as an individual is not notable (or, rather, is only notable for this one crime). Thus, it is the Cheshire crime itself that is encyclopedically notable, and not necessarily its perpetrators. I think that's a distinction between Hayes and Gardner. So, at least in these two cases, Wikipedia is consistent. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Title of article

I think the title of the article is still somewhat unwieldy. Based on searching published news articles, I suggest something more concise like "Petit home invasion murders" or "Petit family murders". You can find good examples of articles of similar subject matter that have passed GA and FA review at WP:CRIME#Recognized content. KimChee (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The present title does seem a bit unwieldy, I agree. But, I guess that we have to go with the name by which most people would refer to this crime. It seems to me that the "Cheshire" murders is much more well-known (common) than the "Petit" murders. But, I could be wrong. What do others think? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

More sources

• "Hayes to Conn. correction officer: 'I'm going to rip your heart out' (documents)." New Haven Register. Tuesday October 26, 2010. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Fantz, Ashley. "Writings reveal mind of next man to be tried in Connecticut killings." CNN. November 12, 2010. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Egan, Nicole Weisensee. "Dr. William Petit Testifies About the Horror of Family's Murder." People. Tuesday September 14, 2010.

Photographs of perpetrators

Why were the photographs of the perpetrators removed? Aren't those public documents, without any licensing or copyright restrictions? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

Only the works from the federal government are guaranteed public domain. States may retain copyrights, but some (I know California) doesn't. I haven't seen the photos in question, so I do not know their origin. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The photographs were the typical run-of-the mill police mug shots or prison booking photos. See this link: [1]. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Tone of article

There are portions of this article that read more like a 'true crime' novel than an encyclopedia. For instance, do we really need to mention that they bought some balsamic vinegar before being murdered. I can see how details like these might be good for setting the scene of normality in a true crime piece, but this is an encyclopedia. The same goes for their inmate numbers. I'm not going to make changes for a while, in case people are utterly against me encyclopedia-fying the article. Ashmoo (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth ... here are my opinions on the above matters that you raise. (1) Yes, I agree that there are some parts of this article in which the tone needs to be cleaned up a bit. (2) I agree that the grocery list details are unnecessary. (3) As far as the inmate numbers, I can take them or leave them. I don't think that they are necessarily helpful or hurtful, either way. However, I do tend to see such inmate numbers show up quite a bit in similar articles. In fact, if you type in "inmate number" in the Wikipedia search bar, you will get dozens of relevant hits (e.g., Matthew F. Hale, Donald Harvey, Camilla Broe, George Ryan, Carl Panzram, etc.). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

I agree the article tone should be encyclopedic. I disagree that the above mention is un-encyclopedic. While it would be improper to label the family as "normal", it is not improper to present referenced facts which lead the reader to their own conclusion. I'll admit when I added the fact of their last meal, I hoped perhaps the reader would reach such a conclusion. Nevertheless this is a collaborative effort to tell this important story, in encyclopedic terms, as best possible. Therefore make changes, which can only serve to reach this desired end, without hinder. I am happy to have contributed and welcome the contributions of others. Cheers. My76Strat 02:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. In the "grand scheme" of this story, the fact that they went to the grocery store is indeed important. (It gives the sense of normalcy to a normal, routine day and to the everyday mundane task of preparing dinner. It is also germane since that is where they were "stalked" by the killers.) But, the specific items that they actually purchased for the meal, I think, are not necessarily important in the grand scheme and the overall presentation of the story. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AGK [•] 12:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Engaging and tightly-written, and covers all the bases of the subject matter. A definite plus is how well the article deals with the subject in a neutral way: it'd be easy to sensationalise the topic.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Everything referenced fine. Reliable sources for these topics are limited mainly to news stories (it takes a good decade for most crimes to make it into academic literature and at least five for journals, monthlies, etc.) so that's not a worry here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers everything well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No licensing problems. Image usage is sparing but adequate.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Happy to grant this article GA status. AGK [•] 12:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disappointing that this article made GA review. The presumption of guilt on the part of one of the defendants of an ongoing criminal trial is unacceptable. causa sui (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The Home invasion section should be removed, along with some other parts involving Komisarjevsky.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations

Based on concerns expressed here (above) and at WP:BLPN, I've removed everything from the Home invasion section except the first sentence. The Komisarjevsky material throughout the section is a clear BLP violation as he has not been convicted. It doesn't matter that sources are reporting on these events. We can't outline criminal acts of a living person without a conviction or without it being phrased very differently from the the way it was described in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Judging by what ran recently in The New York Times, this is an overreaction: "Another defense lawyer, Walter C. Bansley III, began by conceding many of the facts but blaming Mr. Hayes for turning the crime into a homicide. 'Joshua Komisarjevsky never intended to kill anyone,' he said."[2] The essential description of events isn't contested, just a dispute between the two admitted perpetrators as to their relative culpability. The section needs careful review to eliminate certain unproven aspects of the description, but most of the contents were adequately sourced and apparently accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, it was a hatchet job (a poor one at that), to remove all of the information citing BLP concerns. You would be hard pressed to find any of the content that was not factually neutral in its presentation and supported by WP:RS! I'll revisit this soon, to ensure a correction is in place. My76Strat (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that removal of the entire section was an overreaction. However, valid concerns have been raised about that section. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made additional comments at BLPN on the problems with the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how there are BLP violations in the article. The content that was deleted had legitimate references. In the references, the information regarding the details of the crime was based on admissions by the defendents, including Komisarjevsky himself. The only piece that seems to be at dispute is whether the individual responsible for the escalation of the home invasion to other crimes was Komisarjevsky or Hayes. That single point of contention does not warrant the deletion of the majority of the section. 134.186.130.250 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The objections we are making are not over the truth of the claims. My understanding is that both defendants have confessed to more than has been published in any news article, and the circumstances of their arrest leave little reasonable doubt as to who was responsible for the deaths of those people. The problem with the section as it stood was that it the purpose was obviously to demonize the defendants. There is no critical encyclopedic need to document the crime in such excruciating detail. Maybe they deserve to be demonized, but Wikipedia cannot be the venue for that. I hope that we'll be able to draft a more brief, factual, and to-the-point narrative of the events. Additionally, while both defendants are banged to rights by anyone's reckoning, it is nevertheless never acceptable to presume guilt on the part of anyone who has not been convicted in a criminal trial. causa sui (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Motive?

Just out of curiosity, is anything known about the motives of the murderer(s)? I'm just wondering since it isn't stated in the article at the moment. Is it not known why the crime was committed, or is it being left out for BLP reasons? Robofish (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect that there really could be a motive for a crime like this. causa sui (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so. I just don't understand what would make people do a thing like this, and was wondering if there's anything remotely comprehensible about it (say, if it was a robbery that got way out of hand). But it doesn't really matter, and anyway I'm violating WP:NOTFORUM, so I'll leave it there. Robofish (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From the news reports ("Dateline", "Hartford Courant"), the motive was the rape and terrorizing of Michelea Petit. The mastermind saw her at the store with Mrs. Hawke-Petit earlier in the day and became fixated. The prosecution played a tape in court that he thought Michela "was 14 or 15"--because of course this would justify raping and torturing her to death--to justify his actions. I know it's not a forum, and it violates NPOV, but if you're "netural" about the calculated murder of four people, you're a physopath. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but at least I'd know how to spell psychopath. EEng (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right, the real problem with this heinous crime is that someone with the right idea about the motives of the scum who perpetrated it misspelled a word... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Inmate numbers

I've started a topic at WP:BLPN on whether including inmate numbers is appropriate in this - or any other - article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand and will participate. A clear consensus will be helpful. I apologize if my edit summary disturbed you. It was not my intention to aggravate circumstances and I realize how I could have summarized the revert better. So let us now determine the best practice regarding inmates and their assigned number. My76Strat (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary did not disturb me, and no apology is necessary. I can see you've commented at BLPN, so that's great.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What became of that issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Camp shown at Joshua Komisarjevsky's trial

I found an article that might find you interesting and maybe you could add to the Jesus Camp and the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders articles: Komisarjevsky's Demons: Witness Focuses on Family's Strict Beliefs --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure the lame attempts of the defense to justify the actions of their child raping murdering scum of a client is all that noteworthy. One has to wonder about the legal profession where lawyers waste the jurors time with such nonsense. Were the criminals' families arrested and convicted as accomplices because of this ploy? Doubt it. Why aren't there just millions and millions of similar cases out there where actions or inactions of parents led their miscreant children to act violently against society? Ultimately, these two are reaponsible for their actions and should pay the price. Quite frankly a nice comfortable prison stay with a sleepy demise maybe at the end is too good for them.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders → Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders – Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it be grammatically to only have the first comma? Yaksar (let's chat) 02:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No. The state name is considered an appositive to the city name and thus is separated by commas. This is similar to a year being separated by commas when listed in a date, as the year is also considered an appositive. Another example is the use of "Jr.", which is considered an appositive to a person's name. For example:

• The population of Denver, Colorado, has reached one million.
• On May 7, 2012, the building was demolished.
• John Smith, Jr., was elected chairman of the committee.

In all of these cases, the item in apposition is separated by commas. These include the state Colorado in the first example, the year 2012 in the second example, and the title "Jr." in the third example. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation?

This article states: "It is comments such as these that make the case open to interpretation as to the actual events." This sounds awfully like some misguided individual's POV as there is no reference for this statement linking it back to a judge, attorney, jury member, etc. - you know, someone who has seen all of the evidence, etc. who can make a knowledgeable statement of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

With friends like this...

This article also states: "Hayes' attorney Thomas Ullman told the jury that a sentence of life in prison would be the harshest possible punishment for Hayes, because he is so tormented by his crimes and would be isolated in prison. "Life in prison without the possibility of release is the harshest penalty," Ullman said. "It is a fate worse than death. If you want to end his misery, put him to death," he added. "If you want him to suffer and carry that burden forever, the guilt, shame, and humiliation, sentence him to life without the possibility of release."" Awfully odd position for a defense attorney to take seeking "the harshest possible punishment" for his client - maybe the attorney's political agenda here that should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bare URLs

BabbaQ has asked me to take a look at the references for this article, and I am frankly disgusted. Good articles should not contain bare URLs - all FIVE of them have been fixed. Also, this article should be at "Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion murders" because "Cheshire, Connecticut" is the name of the place and not "Cheshire, Connecticut,". I note with consternation that this was discussed above and the wrong conclusion was reached; if this was in, say, London, the article would be at "London home invasion murders" not "London, home invasion murders" so why is this any different? I really have half a mind to demote this article.--Launchballer 19:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)