Talk:Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

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

Allegations of mutilation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's obvious that those reports of dismemberment are true. All of the evidence point to it. e.g. the autopsy photos being "too graphic to be shown in court," "prosecutors say the crime scene photos they use will be the least graphic ones they have available," "one prosecutor pointed out that in the manner and distance the photos were taken from, "one cannot tell the pictures of Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom were human bodies." Just because the source is something that one does not like (e.g. white supremacists) does not mean that such is false. Moreover, why specifically insinuate that it was her mammary glands that was cut off? Why not spread the rumor that her hands were sliced off, or eyelids for that matter? People don't just spread "dismemberment rumors" for no reason. rock8591 02:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason why white supremacists were making false allegations of mutilation is because the mainstream media was not reporting the facts. The Wikipedia article sets the record straight I hope. The coroner testified about facts. The crime is awful enough without dismemberment, but I would have added information about that if there was a good source. 172.131.133.144 (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)BG

Why no photos of the murderers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The racial element is important

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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