Talk:Smiley face murder theory

AP Article about Thanksgiving, 2014

http://news.yahoo.com/body-missing-pa-college-student-recovered-195547184.html A West Chester University student who disappeared on Thanksgiving after a night out with friends. A Philadelpia area AP story. Schuylkill River. Shane Montgomery. Shane, a 21-year-old senior at West Chester. Kildare's Irish Pub in the city's lively Manayunk neighborhood around 2 a.m.

FBI Supervisory Special Agent J.J. Klaver said Saturday a body was recovered behind the Manayunk Brew Pub, less than a 10-minute walk from Kildare's.

Gannon and Duarte's Investigation

The following should not be in the article because it is editor's opinion and not necesarily that of local law enforcement

While the majority of these cases are believed by local authorities to be the result of accidental drownings

No where in the sources does it say what the majority of local law enforcement officials believe. Only a few local law enforcement officials commented on the theory.

The detectives claim that drownings in as many as 11 states may be linked and they investigated drownings in over 20 cities.

The source used says local law enforcement officials do not necessarily support their theory. This is the Fox news story titled Detectives:40 drowning victims may have been murdered. The other source used only has a comment by the FBI

There was no poll done or statements taken from local officials in over 20 different cities where drownings occurred.

Please provide a source for claim or leave unsubstantiated claim out of article--Yankee2009 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are misinterpreting the statement. To me it reads, "Majority" modifies "cases", not "law enforcement". So, in most cases the local law enforcement, for that individual case, believe the death to be the result of accidental drowning. Is there, maybe a better way to phrase that? Padillah (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since none of the drownings have been classified as "homicides', we should change the sentence to, "While the majority of these case have been classified as accidental drownings by law enforcement..." This removes the weasel-y word "believe". Angryapathy (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Padillah (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Again an unsubstantiated argument is made. Many of the drownings are undetermined. It is not like law enforcement agencies across the country wrote off the drownings as being accidental. --Yankee2009 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about, "While none of the cases have been classified as homicides by law enforcement..." I think that is universally agreed, and also keeps NPOV for the article. Angryapathy (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cases are "ruled" homicides by the Coroners office. But, other than that, I've got no issues with the above. Padillah (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cases have been classified as homicides. There are many clusters and within them there is a suspected homicide or a drowning or disappearance called suspicious by law enforcement .Kondracki in LaCrosse and a FBI spokesperson said alcohol was the cause in the majority of drownings. There were no unusual drownings or clusters after 1998 in LaCrosse . There were drownings of young men there that had consumed a lot of alcohol after that time period. Another argument was made by a law enforcement official in the northeast they were not linked. No one knows what the majority opinion is .It is known there were murders,suspicious drownings and disappearances. It is not known if there is a link between them or more than one person in a cluster was actually a victim.--Yankee2009 (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To Yankee2009's point we really should have a source citing how many of the murders are ruled and to what degree this impacts the "Smiley Face" theory. Otherwise it's WP:SYN. Padillah (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are too many unknowns because there is not a complete list of probable victims,besides just because a few people may have been murdered a similar way is far from being proof they are linked. The detectives did not make a very good case for a smiley face gang theory. Without further evidence of something besides smiley faces or other things that could easily be coincidence, the drownings look to be unrelated incidents.The suspicious drownings are spread too far apart. Detective Gannon named all the possible Minnesota and Wisconsin victims. The majority of Wisconsin victims are believed to be alcohol related accidents. There was no determination made of many of the Minnesota deaths. They know Jenkin's was probably murdered in Minneapolis,but there is no belief by local authorities the drownings are linked. Some local authorities commented on the lack of evidence of a link and others commented on alcohol being a factor. Kondracki would have every reason to believe the majority were accidents because of the high alcohol level of victims in LaCrosse . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am being asked to back up my claim ,yet I am not the one making assumptions.This just does not make any sense. I never assumed there was a book deal. I never assumed Pat Brown thought all of Gannon's theories were wrong. I never assumed they were accidental deaths. I never assumed they were murders. I never assumed more than one person could be the killer. I never assumed I should take the word of a few people in law enforcement that they were accidents.I never assumed the graffiti was related to murders. I do assume the editors are biased because the facts do back that up.If someone thinks differently then prove it. Keep making things up about me all you want.--Yankee2009 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Now for some facts on serial killers. Law enforcement almost always catches them from either dumb luck or help from the public.Pat Brown agrees with this.It also is common knowledge. It also is not unheard of that someone from outside of law enforcement reached the correct conclusion before law enforcement did.Some parents believe their kids could have been murdered by a serial killer drowning victims.From an article on The Atlanta child killer.

in a patch of woods near Niskey Lake Road; Edward had been shot with a .22 caliber pistol while Alfred had been asphyxiated. Initially, the police thought the deaths were drug-related. In early September, Milton Harvey, 14, disappeared from a middle-class neighborhood in northwest Atlanta. His remains were found two months later in a garbage dump. The body of Yusef Bell, 9, was found in a deserted elementary school on November 8. While the authorities didn't think the four murders were connected, others -- including Yusef's mother Camille -- disagreed.

Were they conspiracy nuts that believed in a fringe theory just because law enforcement disagreed? Would they only be conspiracy nuts if they also claimed smiley faces were left behind?

The parents were right and law enforcement was wrong. A fringe theory is something not considered mainstream. Even if the majority in law enforcement did not believe(no sources provided by lazy editors) there was no killers that hardly makes them the mainstream.The public has been an important factor in catching killers.Killers are caught more often from correct information from the public then from the investigative skills of law enforcement personal.It was law enforcement that brought Jeffrey Dahmer's victim back to him and let him go on to murder several more young men. If the whole truth never came out the editors here would try to influence that story. They would have you believe the officer was right and the witness that called in and reported the incident was wrong.They would have you believe the lady witness was some kind of conspiracy nut,after all the policemen are the experts. They would look the other way and not wonder if there were going to be more victims.--Yankee2009 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It s not a fringe theory. editors are biased

The experts so called experts that people have used statements from have a credibility problem. Kondracki called drownings alcohol related accidents before test results came back. Other Law enforcement agencies also reached unsubstantiated conclusions. Editors ignorance of facts about the cases has caused a bias to promote this as a fringe theory. After all this time they have not even made a case that this is a fringe theory. below is from an article on Luke Homan

Police said toxicology reports will not be available for several weeks, but Kondracki said that interviews with Homan's acquaintances and a blood- alcohol test issued Friday night to a person who had been with Homan led police to rule out other conclusions.

The person last know to be with Homan could not explain why it looked like he had been in a fight. Below was from the Forensic examiner.]

Back in 1990, a man entered a police station in St. Charles, Missouri, and claimed to be the next Jeffrey Dahmer. The police ignored this man, but he finally got the attention of one detective when he shared his detailed fantasies about drowning young men. A well-known profiler, Pat Brown, got involved with the case and has been monitoring this man for years. Nicknamed John Doe to avoid revealing his identity, this man reportedly wanders from town to town. Based on her interactions with Doe, Brown believes that it is very possible that Doe, or someone like him, could be behind many of these mysterious drownings.

This article has Pat Brown talking about smiley face as if that is the only graffiti the detectives found.I will leave the article as is as proof that wikipedia has a problem with biased editors,should never be used as a reliable source and that editors ignore you or even attack you if you come to the table with facts.--Yankee2009 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If by "facts" you mean "things you heard somewhere", then yes, WP is biased against these supposed "facts". Angryapathy (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not just things I heard somewhere. You are being misleading. They were in articles just like the parts that are in the wikipedia article. I don't take a position on Gannon's theory. There is a reason for that . It is because as I have said before ,I do not know what they found as far as the graffiti and I don't know what other information they have. My bias would be they have not shown to my satisfaction the graffiti is an indication of murder and they have not shown more than one can be involved to my satisfaction.That does not make it a fringe theory. It would be arrogant of me to assume they should show it is not a fringe theory to my personal satisfaction.It would only be a fringe theory to someone that assumes they know more than the detectives. I make no assumptions as to if they have evidence that would indicate that their theory is true. You are making assumptions and avoiding facts. The facts about what was written about the cases. If those articles are biased then it is a problem with the articles and not me. There is obviously a problem here doing a dance around real issues and facts and the treatment of others here. There is no point in having the article if editors are going to form an opinion first. It is better to gather the facts first .You proved my point when you suggested those facts were something that were heard somewhere. I have never promoted this as not being a fringe theory so it is not me that is controversial. I don't care how many editors disagree because you would still all be wrong. --Yankee2009 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the reliable source which says that the John Doe you mentioned earlier is implicated in these alleged murders and Pat Brown is involved. If that truly is a fact, you should have something to back up that extraordinary claim. Angryapathy (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You back up your accusation. I am not the one making accusations. I am not the one promoting this a fringe theory.

Isn't there a rule about making this about the issues and not people? I have no problem with bringing up your bias because there is a bigger problem at wikipedia then one article.You other editors want to break the rules if it does not suit you. Apparently facts are only what the individual editors believe. Don't you think you are being arrogant? Do you think someone should prove to you it is not a fringe theory? Do you believe any one that has worked law enforcement would even give you enough details about crimes to make a conclusion one way or the other every time as to what one should believe? I did say something a long time ago about how law enforcement does not make a point of sharing all their information.Did you miss that? Or are you just seeing what you want to see? It is a fact and not something I heard that law enforcement does not want details put out that they could get a false confession for. Anyone then could give details of how a crime was committed if it were published in the newspapers. Do you believe Pat Brown is more credible then someone that is a highly decorated detective even though she can potentially benefit from publicity while Gannon has never written a book as Pat Brown has and is one of the most decorated police officer.? Would Dreamguy like to answer that last one? Probably not . Once you are willing to admit your attacks and biases then progress can be made.Instead this article is about personal biases .I have proven that point so it is fair to bring it up. You on the other hand have not said anything you can back up with facts. You can see from other comments I don't support their theory but I am not taking a position against it either as far as the article itself is concerned. I have previously said something about them not releasing information that proves the theory. From what I wrote above The detectives did not make a very good case for a smiley face gang theory. Without further evidence of something besides smiley faces or other things that could easily be coincidence, the drownings look to be unrelated incidents. You put me in a situation that is catch 22. Editors making it about other editors . --Yankee2009 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I should have something to back it up because you think so. You made the false accusation. That is the reaction an arrogant person. Are you here so people see things your way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Prove I made an extraordinary claim. There is something called google.Have you ever used it. I put exactly what was in in articles. Pat Browns problem is linking the graffiti and the belief that more than one person could be doing murders. It is not an extraordinary claim. If you assumed she never thought there could be a killer you would be wrong. By calling it an extraordinary claim you proved your bias. Pat Brown never said she does not support a serial killer theory. She said she does not support Gannon's theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you told me what the so called extraordinary claim is I might get around to addressing your made up theory on that.I won't promise anything,because I don't think anyone here is interested in facts in the first place.--Yankee2009 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It says this in the article Criminal profiler Pat Brown calls the serial killer theory "ludicrous

This is poorly worded. If anyone was led to believe Pat Brown thought a serial killer theory was ridiculous then they failed to realize she was commenting on gannon's theory and not a serial killer theory. Pat Brown commented on this- the ex-cops say they found painted smiley faces near where they suspect the bodies first entered the water. Because some of the deaths occurred on the same day in different states, the detectives surmise that more than one person is committing the crimes. She commented on the theory of more than one killer and a belief the graffiti may being linked. All the information that the detectives say led them to this conclusion was not released to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I've tried to weed through the number of comments posted here. I will go back to the start of this section: You quote something that you say is from "an article on Luke Homan", which you then state:

• "Back in 1990, a man entered a police station in St. Charles, Missouri, and claimed to be the next Jeffrey Dahmer. The police ignored this man, but he finally got the attention of one detective when he shared his detailed fantasies about drowning young men. A well-known profiler, Pat Brown, got involved with the case and has been monitoring this man for years. Nicknamed John Doe to avoid revealing his identity, this man reportedly wanders from town to town. Based on her interactions with Doe, Brown believes that it is very possible that Doe, or someone like him, could be behind many of these mysterious drownings."

After that, you claim that editors are biased against facts. Well, I still have no idea where you got the information about this John Doe. I wholeheartedly dispute that as a fact, because it sounds like something from a crackpot website. If you cannot provide a source for this information, then it is "something you heard somewhere", and is not a fact. Simple as that. Angryapathy (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I did give the source. It is not an extraordinary claim. Do you even think before you accuse?I am being asked to back up my claim ,yet I am not the one making assumptions.This just does not make any sense. I never assumed there was a book deal. I never assumed Pat Brown thought all of Gannon's theories were wrong. I never assumed they were accidental deaths. I never assumed they were murders. I never assumed more than one person could be the killer. I never assumed I should take the word of a few people in law enforcement that they were accidents.I never assumed the graffiti was related to murders. I do assume the editors are biased because the facts do back that up.If someone thinks differently then you prove it. Keep making things up about me all you want.That is what you are doing. tell me why i shouldn't treat you the same way you do me? It is rude what you are doing.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a question for you. Did you assume Pat Brown thought there was no killer in the first place?--Yankee2009 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think the Forensic examiner is a crackpot website? For someone concerned with crackpot theories and websites ,you seem to have some crackpot theories of your own.--Yankee2009 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe I am missing some information. Can you provide a link to the source to back up the John Doe information you provided above? Angryapathy (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article has been fair to either law enforcement or Pat Brown because of the misleading statements. It unfairly represents Pat Browns beliefs.It also for a long time made it seem as if law enforcement as a whole was dismissing deaths around the country as accidents with no citations used to back up the claim. In truth many of them just don't do things that way. They don't all jump to conclusions as Kondracki did.Sometimes it does happen. Drownings can be ruled accidental based on the lack of evidence not because they know in fact it was not a murder. No one knows. It has also not been fair to the detectives as people are misled into thinking it was only smiley faces that link the deaths. There were clusters of young men missing in short time frames along certain interstates. There were the same names written in graffiti. There were several other distinct symbols besides smiley faces. It is also not fair to the families and friends of victims that want the drownings investigated. Now I realize some of you around here would rather play games and pretend you just want to follow the rules and even that you are not the ones being biased but that is not the case. If you are not being evasive,you are attacking.If not attacking then you pretend to be like robots that are just trying to play by the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we play by the rules of only allowing verifiable information that comes from reliable secondary sources to be added to this encyclopedia. I am sorry that you take issue with these longstanding rules of Wikipedia. If you feel you would like to air this information elsewhere, feel free to do so. Wikipedia is not the only venue on the internet for information to be disseminated. Angryapathy (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize it was acceptable to focus on the messenger and not the message such as you have done. Or to make false and unverifiable claims.I don't take issues with rules and that is an unverifiable claim. it seems you don't know what an unverifiable claim is. I already proved that.I did not make an extraordinary claim.your attitude seems to be based on ignorance of the facts ,rudeness , arrogance and even possibly jealousy because I know more than you do. I made claims that can be backed up with verifiable facts.You see only what you want to see and attack me once again..I don't even care if you put unverifiable claims in the article.My only concern is people realize wikipedia sucks. you yourself our proving that today . Just because Pat brown or someone in law enforcement says something does not make it true. pat Brown says the following.

For one thing, she says, sociopaths probably wouldn't work that hard, traveling to several states to find victims. Yes they have been known to travel. Some people even travel as part part oftheir occupation

Second, a serial killer's motive is generally pretty clear. "It's usually a sexual assault," Brown says, which isn't the case in these drownings.- not always

Third, serial killers prefer to work alone. "Sometimes you'll get a pair of them," she says, but not working in separate locations.- not always

Fourth, their choice of victims doesn't match the serial killer profile. "They don't pick on big college boys. They pick on little girls, or teenage girls, or young teenage boys like 14 years old who can't fight back."- not always

Fifth, the idea that they could abduct 40 male college students and drown them all without leaving a suspicious mark on their bodies strains all credibility.- there were suspicious marks and it is often assumed any marks were obtained while in the water.Drowning a victim would also be harder to prove.

Just because a certain type of killer is less common is not a very good argument against a serial killer theory. In fact just the opposite may be true because the killer would not fit the typical profile so it would be easier to stay under the radar. Your ability to make up your own facts is disturbing and so is your lack of logic

--Yankee2009 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I tell the truth the most on this discussion page and yet am confronted by the most falsehoods. when were you editors ever concerned about accuracy? Pat Brown never said a serial killer theory was ludicrous and you danced right around that point.She said Gannons theory was. Yet the article reads that way. Yet you blabber on about an unverifiable fact.You have had absolutely no constructive comments to make .You are a crackpot and this is a crackpot site. Even the crackpot sites try to give the whole story and let people decide for themselves so this is worse then any crackpot site I am aware of. --Yankee2009 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to push for accuracy in the story . I never tried to add unverifiable information. Where is your proof ?I think you resent that. I don't think you are being honest with yourself so I don't expect you to say thing that are true in regards to me . Dreamguy is another crackpot. I never heard one word from you about the unverifiable information he wanted to leave in the article.You took a side and are defending it with cheap shots at me and so did dreamguy.

--68.114.135.200 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you want. We have put into this article the information that is available with regards to the weight of the sources. I am not making any assumptions, this is a hard fact:

• No professional law enforcement agency is investigating these deaths as murders.

This is a theory. And not a well-accepted theory. The biggest proponents are the private detectives who came up with the theory and are paid to do so. The detectives profit from the press coverage. I can't find any coverage of this theory in the past six months in any reliable source. We don't need to expand on something that is only believed by a small minority. The info in the article is reliably sourced. If these were actual murders, actual law enforcement officers would be investigating it for the local, state, and federal agencies. What information do you wish to add that is based on a reliable source? Instead of calling us biased, point out what should be added (that follows WP procedure). We can discuss then. Angryapathy (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is you are concerned about unverifiabe when I am not adding it to the article? If I want to I will but until then there is no reason to bring it up.My concern is you are an idiot.

--68.114.135.200 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, with stunningly intelligent comments written in such well-composed English, I would say that your wit has assailed me. I shall retire then. Angryapathy (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You made an unverifiable statement that it is a not well excepted theory. The article read like that but it did it with no citation that used a source that even said that.Things get put in the article,then they become facts in peoples minds without any one even checking the source to see what it says. You don't know it is a minority opinion. I asked for the source that said it was a minority opinion a long time ago.It still has not been produced.Yes they are intelligent comments and I am not used to typing.you have had nothing intelligent to say.--68.114.135.200 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You have no class. You make things up. You are retarded. You are arrogant. I would suggest you worry about working on yourself and quit being a retard like many of the other editors are.--68.114.135.200 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

One other unverifiable thing you said. No professional force is investigating them as murders. Why do you keep making things up? Is it that important to you to be right that you have to act this way. You have issues.--68.114.135.200 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't care what you think of me. Your opinion of me is unimportant to me. If you want to improve this article, please use this page to do so. If you would liek to suggest specific improvements, please do so. Otherwise, I think we can finish with the personal attacks that are wasting hard drive space on the Wikipedia servers. Angryapathy (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't. I can tell by your abrasive personality you are arrogant.I can also see you don't like facts.It is up to you about ending the personal attacks. You keep steering the conversation to things you make up and making misleading statements about me. I am not the one with the problem here.The only one of the two of us that wants to sway public opinion here with the article is you. Yet you try to make it about me. It is like not liek and this is not true-*No professional law enforcement agency is investigating these deaths as murders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.135.200 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Now we have this for reasons this is a fringe theory

The majority were ruled as accidents- not true

Gannon wants a book deal-still no book

Pat Brown says Gannon's theory is wrong because it does not fit her idea of what a typical serial killer will do-yea so?

No professional force is investigating them as murders-not true

They were drunk so blame it in the booze-many had a blood alcohol content that would make them legal to drive

smiley faces are common-smiley faces had horns and was not the only graffiti

cause I know more than the detectives that put a lot of time and effort working on the cases-oh really?

"No law enforcement agency believes that the drownings are linked in any way-false

Because its a consensus-a consensus of idiots

because I just heard this stuff somewhere from some crackpot site-false

--Yankee2009 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Name one police force or law enforcement agency that is investigating these drownings as a string of murders. Otherwise, you might want to convert to pastafarianism, because your arguments sound as good as a flying spaghetti monster. Angryapathy (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You made the claim "No law enforcement agency believes that the drownings are linked in any way". Where is your source? Do you expect me to address everything you make up? This could go on forever. You are wasting hard drive space due to your laziness.

Now the other argument about the FBI and the so called experts..Did the FBI just review the info that was already available? How much forensic evidence did they examine? How many people worked on the cases and how many reached that conclusion? Being swayed with their opinion without knowing many details is not logical. The FBI does not even deserve any credit for the forensic evidence that proved there were murders,yet they carry more weight with some people because it reinforces their personal opinion. The FBI did not want to do a DNA test on the hair Chris Jenkins was clutching in his own hand.It took 4 years to get that done. The Minneapolis police came up with a story that was controversial because they thought Chris Jenkins fell from the bridge. The evidence indicated that was not the case.Lacrosse,Wisconsin only averages 1 drowning in a little over a year yet several young men drowned over a few months. 2 of those drownings were 12 days apart and one was known to be terrified of water.Of course to Dreamguy and other crackpots these are the experts. --68.114.135.200 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not like there has never been a string of murders before. As for spaghetti monsters there have been none that I know of. you have no wit at all.--68.114.135.200 (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone the editors uses as a source to push this as a fringe theory has a credibility problem. The minneapolis police that ignore evidence that did not fit their theory. Pat Brown that made misleading statements Chief Kondracki that made misleading statements. The FBI that said the cases would not get priority. -This was in an article

The editors also use misleading articles and statements in the first place as a basis for the belief this is a fringe theory rather than actual research. The editors also repeat the same pattern of deception that causes the theory to be considered fringe by some in the first place. They also repeat the same pattern of rude and arrogant behavior.If there was no belief by the mainstream then why would Kondracki bother to have a town hall meeting on the subject in the first place? do you think you know more then concerned citizens of LaCrosse? I am addressing the real issue of the problem with this article. Arrogance of editors and your lack of knowledge. You say you don't know what I want . I have to repeat myself because you don't pay attention in the first place. You keep wasting hard drive space but never back up a claim this is a fringe theory . Back up your claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.135.200 (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Angryapathy made the following comment 4 months ago.

This article strongly shows that all reputable law enforcement agencies reject the theory Now if angryapathy believes this then why in the last 4 months has a source not been provided to back up the claim? Why is he taking the low road? If he believes hard drive space is being wasted then the fault is his own for making things up which I am addressing.

Gannon wants a book deal-still no book

Pat Brown says Gannon's theory is wrong because it does not fit her idea of what a typical serial killer will do-yea so?

No professional force is investigating them as murders-not true

They were drunk so blame it in the booze-many had a blood alcohol content that would make them legal to drive

smiley faces are common-smiley faces had horns and was not the only graffiti

cause I know more than the detectives that put a lot of time and effort working on the cases-oh really?

"No law enforcement agency believes that the drownings are linked in any way-false

He also says I got information I just heard somewhere. He makes things up and then asks me to show sources. Angryapathy would rather I present even more evidence he is not telling the truth rather than save hard drive space. Exactly what is it you want? I am simply pointing out none of you had made a case this is a fringe theory.I did not come here to fight. You came to me and made false accusations.You were involved in the discussion of what should be in the article without having a source to back up a claim you made. --Yankee2009 (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to say this as simply as possible for you. If you would like to suggest an addition to this article, please do so, and back it up with a source. Otherwise all you are doing is ranting about this theory but doing nothing constructive. Angryapathy (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to say this as simply as possible to you. If you want to promote this as a fringe theory and make extraordinary claims then back it up with a source.Otherwise all you are doing is ranting and doing nothing constructive.4 months ago you made a false claim without a source. I proved that you were wrong and I can do it again. Please provide sources for your extraordinary claims or shut up.Please stop wasting hard drive space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.135.200 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not do this. Just start another section for making false accusations against me.Problem solved. You could even have another section to make all the misleading statements you want about the theory without even providing sources as you have done before..I am never going to see things your way because I gathered the facts and then formed an opinion and you did the opposite.I will let you make up any nonsense you want in that section and not reply to any of it. This section is about the promotion of the theory as a fringe theory without a source. It is not about me telling people about stuff I just heard somewhere. It is about people like you that don't use a reliable source to back up a claim. If you want to accuse just do it somewhere else.--Yankee2009 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously this isn't a fringe theory. After all, serial killings of 40 people would get tons of press coverage...oh wait, this theory isn't getting lots of press coverage. And hasn't in months. So wait, that makes it a fringe theory...Let me give you an example of how this is a fringe theory: If I were to claim that people from Jupiter were going to invade, people are going to ignore me. Hence no press coverage and "refutations". Same thing applies here. This theory was considered interesting by a few media outlets, but law enforcement agencies have better things to do than to cater to what the attention-hungry PI's have to say. And again, thanks for proving that NO law enforcement agency is investigating this as serial killings. Just name one. Come on, just one little agency or police department. One tiny proof that real police care about this theory? Wait, what's that? None of them do? Dance around it all you want. This is a fringe theory. Very few people believe in it. Just because the world doesn't stop all goings-on to refute a little-believed theory doesn't make it true. We have covered this theory in accordance to the weight of the believers and non-believers. Read WP:UNDUE if you want to see what WP has to say about it. Angryapathy (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I told you you could have your own section for making things up. When it was being discussed what the majority of LE believed I provided a source. I would not be so arrogant as to make a claim and not back it up. You made the claim no agency is investigating them,yet you don't provide a source. I did not make the claim . You did. YOU DID -YOU DID-Get it through your head. People from Jupiter have never invaded but serial killers are real. Santa Clause is also not real. If a crime does not get press coverage all the time that does not mean it did not happen. You are being ridiculous. --Yankee2009 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's the name of the law enforcement agency investigating these so-called murders? Oh, wait, you again failed to mention any professional law enforcement agency that takes this theory seriously. I think that makes this...a fringe theory. Thanks again! Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Call all the police departments.. Then you can tell them they did no work looking into if other drownings were related with other law enforcement agencies.I am sure they will appreciate you accusing them of not doing this and just brushing drownings off as unrelated accidents. I am not your secretary or personal slave. You made the claim. --68.114.135.200 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Why do you make claims and then expect others to prove your claims are not true? There were LE agencies looking into this and as a matter of fact I do know which . You insinuated I did not because you are dishonest. It is not my job to prove something you don't believe to be false.You were explained this over and over again but you are rude and stupid it does not sink in. I do not enjoy calling people names but when it is true I will. I would rather get along. You are another stuck up person that acts like you are above it all as you are a snob.I realize the snobs such as yourself dominate this site and thats what I have to deal with to be here. You can never admit when you are wrong and just keep escalating the situation.Fortunately for the site i went away from your idiotic rants and all the harrassment from people like yourself. Wikipedia is that much less accurate without me. It is a shame you act like you know more about a subject than I do. IF that is the case I would be glad to quiz you any time to see what you really do know. You act like you are better than me. Who are all the police agencies brushing them off as unrelated accidents? Go ahead name all of them.Oh wait. You don't know anything.You are here wasting hard drive space --Yankee2009 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the names of the people taking this seriously, since if a group of noted people or the majority would support the theory, it would not be a fringe theory. Otherwise, it is a minority view, and hence a fringe theory. It's simple. Oh, it is hilarious that you end everything with, "You are wasting hard drive space." It's like goodbye, but sillier! Angryapathy (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

feel free to delete this evidence of who the troll really is. Copied from article. "When they went down into the area where we thought he went into the water, they noticed the graffiti and they noticed this smiley face painted on the wall," said Willoughby. It's a smiley face with a crown on its head. It's on the wall of the bar under the party deck, just 30 feet from the creek. Detective Willoughby called Tommy's mom who had also seen the news report. "When he told me about the smiley face, it just gave me chills," she said. The New York detectives believe there's more than one killer, perhaps a gang, since all of the smiley faces are painted differently. Detective Willoughby has sent them pictures of the smiley face found near Ridley Creek. He also contacted the FBI, even though they've looked at the other cases and dismissed the possibility of a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.132.7 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for this. You did make the claim. I know what baiting is and that is what you are doing.

This theory was considered interesting by a few media outlets, but law enforcement agencies have better things to do than to cater to what the attention-hungry PI's have to say.

Those few media outlets were not just a few local networks. They were also major networks.ABC. FOX.CNN . There were also newspapers and magazines that covered this.People magazine. The Forensic examiner. Stuff Magazine. Milwaukee Magazine. Prove to me the Pi's are attention hungry. There has no been no book deal.Why do you make statements you can' back up when they are your claims? You are asking me to prove your claims are not true and that is not right. Are you going to complain again that I wasting hard drive space addressing your BS?I will give you all the rope you want.--Yankee2009 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?

it is a minority view, and hence a fringe theory .

If you make a claim you should provide the source.You are using wikipedia to gossip.--Yankee2009 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a source that Jupiter is not invading Earth. Otherwise, it is not a fringe theory, and should be consider a mainstream view. And we should be afraid of Jupiterians. Angryapathy (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You can not make up your mind. You complain about attention hungry P I's ,yet seem to have no problem with Pat Brown who is in the media frequently. You also say on the other hand only a few media outlets covered the murder theory. You don't provide sources either.You are talking gibberish. What does how much media coverage have to do with what is the truth? If no one reports the sky is blue then by your standards there is no blue sky.What don't you understand? You are making claims without sources.You make up everything else so you might as well argue that Santa Clause is real or there are people on Jupiter. No doubt you would think in your mind it would be my responsibility to find sources that dispute that claim. you are impatient for someone that had four months to provide a source and did not. I probably would not be putting up with all this nonsense if editors were not seeking like minded people for input on the article.I don't need to gather an army of propagandists because the truth is on my side.--Yankee2009 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pat Browns comments are given more weight because editors share her opinion and not because they make an argument the theory is ludicrous.In fact they think I should prove the theory is not ludicrous. If it is their opinion then they should make arguments based on facts. They should prove it and not be hounding me to prove their opinions are wrong.Pat Brown thinks it would not fit a description of a typical profile of serial killers. This is not an argument that the theory is ludicrous . It is her opinion .Haleys comet only comes around once every one hundred years but it does come around. This is a fair comparison unlike what Angryapaty does.He makes ridiculous analogies as to ridicule me. The editors would have you believe the people that share their views are the majority and yet fail to provide proof. In fact they are so lazy they want me to prove what they believe is wrong ,rather than taking the time to prove their opinions are right.The editors feel as long as a few people, they feel are notable shares their opinion, that gives their opinions legitimacy.Facts give legitimacy and not someones opinion. The editors fail to know the difference between their opinions and facts. This makes them unqualified to make decisions as to if this is a fringe theory and what should be in the article. The editors have had ample time to back up their claims ,yet they have failed to do so. --Yankee2009 (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you attack me again at least consider it from my point of view. I neither agree or disagree with Pat Browns opinion. I do not know what the evidence is. I don't know what graffiti they found and I don't know how common it is. I have said this before and no one disputed it that people in law enforcement do not make a point of sharing every detail of a possible crime.This is common knowledge.The detectives said they did not reveal all their evidence.The editors want me to prove their point of view is not correct ,rather than show theirs is.The editors provided no sources or even any arguments against this point.The editors provided no proof the detectives want a book deal or are publicity hounds either.They ignored these points because addressing them did not suit them. The editors seem to think I should be held to a higher standard then they hold for themselves. I am being attacked for my lack of arrogance by not making assumptions about a theory.If the editors think they know more than the detectives ,then they should just come out and say so and provide a source that proves this.The editors have had ample time to address these points with facts but failed to do so. All they have done is make unsourced claims and to try to avoid embarrassing themselves with their ignorance while attacking me. --Yankee2009 (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Now for some facts on serial killers. Law enforcement almost always catches them from either dumb luck or help from the public.Pat Brown agrees with this.It also is common knowledge. It also is not unheard of that someone from outside of law enforcement reached the correct conclusion before law enforcement did.Some parents believe their kids could have been murdered by a serial killer drowning victims.From an article on The Atlanta child killer.

in a patch of woods near Niskey Lake Road; Edward had been shot 

with a .22 caliber pistol while Alfred had been asphyxiated. Initially, the police thought the deaths were drug-related. In early September, Milton Harvey, 14, disappeared from a middle-class neighborhood in northwest Atlanta. His remains were found two months later in a garbage dump. The body of Yusef Bell, 9, was found in

a deserted elementary school on November 8. While the authorities 

didn't think the four murders were connected, others -- including

Yusef's mother Camille -- disagreed. 

Were they conspiracy nuts that believed in a fringe theory just because law enforcement disagreed? Would they only be conspiracy nuts if they also claimed smiley faces were left behind?

The parents were right and law enforcement was wrong. A fringe theory is something not considered mainstream. Even if the majority in law enforcement did not believe(no sources provided by lazy editors) there was no killers that hardly makes them the mainstream.The public has been an important factor in catching killers.Killers are caught more often from correct information from the public then from the investigative skills of law enforcement personal.It was law enforcement that brought Jeffrey Dahmer's victim back to him and let him go on to murder several more young men. If the whole truth never came out the editors here would try to influence that story. They would have you believe the officer was right and the witness that called in and reported the incident was wrong.They would have you believe the lady witness was some kind of conspiracy nut,after all the policemen are the experts. They would look the other way and not wonder if there were going to be more victims.--Yankee2009 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the biased editors have an advantage because they are affecting what the public sees. People link to this site when they are having a talk about the theory. This can influence what the public thinks in the first place. Wikipedia is being used to influence what the mainstream thinks due to the arrogance of editors. I have no desire to push my views on others. The people that do are the ones that should provide the sources. Wikipedia is not to be used to promote ones personal beliefs and yet the editors are doing just that. --Yankee2009 (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Pat Brown says in the article "it does not fit the evidence" we Don't know what the evidence is. If angryapathy knows what it is he must either work for the FBI,be psychic or is the killer. the same with the rest of you.Pat Brown makes controversial statements. the editors that call this a fringe theory make controversial statements.From the FBI's website .http://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm OH LOOK A SOURCE FOR MY CLAIM. Pay attention angryapathy.

Myth: Serial killers are only motivated by sex.

All serial murders are not sexualy-based. There are many other motivations for serial murders including anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking.

Pat Brown says this- Second, a serial killer's motive is generally pretty clear. "It's usually a sexual assault," Brown says, which isn't the case in these drownings.here is the source.-Wikipedia usee this source.

I have shown that the editors that are promoting this as a fringe theory are arrogant. I have shown the experts they agree with are controversial. I have shown that those editors are controversial. I have shown they do not provide sources for their claims. I have shown they are trouble makers. I have shown they are snobs. I have shown that they lack knowledge on the subject matter.--Yankee2009 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What still no sources to show this is a fringe theory? What a surprise.Still no sources to show the so called experts are a credible source? Kondracki is once again talking out of his ass. Angryapathy is an expert on this.He is now claiming that river Watch has saved 50 people from drowning. This is propaganda. Propaganda is a tool the editors use on wikipedia when it serves their purpose.In 30 years Lacrosse did not have 50 college age men drown ,yet in a few years they saved 50 people?.The editors make decisions based on assumptions and would then tell you it is my responsibity to prove them wrong. This is ridiculous.Should the Minneapolis police also be considered credible? Probably not.have they forgot the Chris Jenkins case? I don't think they even read up on it .You can not have a credible site that presents a theory in a way that is fair and lets people make up their own minds with this kind of attitude.The editors are at war with truth.What they are for is forcing their opinion down your throat on a theory they don't know much about in the first place.From a story on Chris Jenkins below.

"Minneapolis police wouldn't talk on camera but said there is not a shred of credible evidence Chris Jenkins was murdered -- no need for dogs, DNA or debriefing wannabe serial killers. The detective in charge of the case told 12 News the Jenkins need to come back to reality," Henry said.

"I can't imagine in my wildest dream that he's not a suspect. He talks about Saran Wrap and duct tape, well certainly Saran Wrap is not something that would leave marks that you'd ever pick up in an autopsy," Jan Jenkins said.

"Our entire life has been consumed to find answers, and every time, any direction that we went, we had law enforcement in the way trying to stop us from finding answers," Steve Jenkins said.

Henry wants to emphasize that the man she talked to is not a suspect. Minneapolis police contend there is no crime, so they won't do further investigation.

The man in Missouri told 12 News that he was on a road trip at the time Jenkins and the others disappeared. The only way to confirm that would be with, possibly, credit card or phone records and only police have the authority to subpoena those records -- fueling the family's frustration.

If there is a serial killer the editors here,law enforcement and the rest of the idiots spewing propaganda are complicit and enablers of that killer.--Yankee2009 (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the long list of information you have provided actually discuss the "Smiley Face Murder Theory." From every reliable source (which are few and far between) that mentions this theory, it is made clear that this theory is not mainstream. Please only provide information from sources that describe the theory itself. Otherwise, you are doing original research, which is not allowed. I suggest that if you want to discuss in the detail you desire, try another site, for instance Google's Knol project or creating a website for the theory. According to WP's policies and guidelines, and consensus of other editors, this subject is receiving the proper amount of coverage. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies, you are free to go elsewhere. Angryapathy (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of the page

I have posted this on Yankee's wall, and am reiterating it here on the talk page. Blanking a page to prove your point does not endear other editors to your cause. An RfC can be started if Yankee wants this theory to be treated as more than a fringe theory, although I highly doubt he will like the results when other policy-minded editors weigh in on the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This stupidity has gone on long enough.Your attitude is arrogant and is like one of a person at war. You editors with your uninformed opinions and stupidity are a complete waste of time.You shouldn't talk about endearing yourself to anyone after the way you acted. You are a moron.That is something that can be proven more easily then then the assumption this is a fringe theory so it is apropiate to say so.Say what you want but if any one was to ever say wikipedia is a unbiased and reliable source that would be a fringe theory thanks to editors like yourself. You are the fringe and too stupid to realize it.You should have took my offer when you had the chance.If you want a war then bring it on. Bring all the other retards here also to make up some more bullshit.You are worthless piece of trash .Sometimes the trash needs to be taken out.That's the problem with wikipedia . The trash thrives here. There is no hope for this site.--Yankee2009 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd refer you to WP:CIVIL, but I know that is a waste of time. This page is for discussing the subject, not for you to make insults. Please try to stay on topic. Angryapathy (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you know about being civil? You wanted a war with me .You were losing so now you are backing off because you have no facts to back up your ridiculous claims. You have been rude . You have been arrogant . You are a hypocrite. You have been a snob. Those are facts.I am staying on topic because people like you are what is wrong with the article. I am not putting the cart ahead of the horse. I am addressing the issue that is the cause for problems with the article and you are part of that problem. You would identify with an evil attention whore bitch like Pat Brown because you are one. Pat Brown is a lying media whore and should not be given more weight. Dreamguy should agree with this but he won't because he also has double standards and is a hypocrite. Your problem is with facts that don't fit with your beliefs and your arrogance. If you are comfortable with yourself being a bitch that lies that is between you and your God. You are an a hole get over it or change.

Some of Pat Browns unfounded statements

they claim these symbols have got to be made by this gang–I never heard them say this. They said they found several distinct symbols and what they believed were nicknames.

They claim there is a bunch of men who target athletic, blond, college boys and drown them in bodies of water -A bunch? I heard they believe it is more than one person

Nor do they believe that most of these deaths could have been accidents or suicide -I never heard this either.

Now, I might buy this if the symbol, this signature, was a bunny rabbit with wings coming out of its back and sporting big green teeth, but a smiley face? Wow! How rare!-see pat brown comment one. --Yankee2009 (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you do not like the policies of Wikipedia and the opinions of other editors, you are welcome to take your views elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the only place for information on the web. Complaining that you don't like the policies and consensus serves no purpose. You can choose to abide by the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, or you can choose to try and publish the views elsewhere. Please read WP:CIVIL and especially WP:VERIFY if you wish to continue editing here. Angryapathy (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proved every allegation false made by a hostile editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.132.7 (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggest Possible Inclusion Of Sexual Assault Accusations Against Det. Kevin Gannon

In April of last year, a 19 year-old student and volunteer searcher for then missing student Dan Zamlen accused Det. Gannon of sexual assault. The attack reportedly occurred on April 19, in Gannon's rental car. A car matching the description of Gannon's rental car was verified by security footage to be in the location the victim claims the attack occurred. Gannon reportedly skipped town before he could be questioned and has failed to return all calls from investigators.

http://www.twincities.com/rosario

Request that this info possibly be included as it directly pertains to the subject and as the alleged attack occured during the search efforts for then missing person Dan Zamlen, whom Gannon believed may have been a victim of the "smiley face killers". BoyintheMachine (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure does not pertain to the case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does and could go under a "controversy" sub-header, as the accusations were levelled during Gannon's involvement in the search for Dan Zamlen, with the understanding that Zamlen was possibly a victim of the "smiley face killers". BoyintheMachine (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to create an article about Gannon, and find further WP:RS to support this claim, then it goes there. Otherwise, it's merely an attempt to discredit someone who put forth a theory - and this article is about the theory, not the person. Plus, with the "innocent until proven guilty" concept, an allegation that prosecutors will not follow up on further is certainly WP:UNDUE weight. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That information belongs in an article about Gannon, not this one. Angryapathy (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Gannon on his own is notable enough for his own article, so that's out. DreamGuy (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this is a noteworthy news story that is assoicated with this subject. It's not an attempt to discredit anybody as the theory itself was discredited long ago when it was rejected by the FBI and law enforcement, let alone criminal profiler Pat Brown's use of the word "ludicrous" to describe the theory. I can also speak nothing of the truthfulness of the accusations, only that such is appropriate for this article as it occured during the search for a supposed victim of the smiley face killers. We all know Gannon does not deserve a page by himself, it would simply redirect here. Unless you can give me something of substance other than "I don't agree", then I will go ahead and write the subheader under "Controversy". Unless, that is you can provide reason why a newstory associated with the smiley face killer theory should not be included in the wiki page of that theory. tick-tock...70.246.84.6 (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you add the text, either here or in the actual article, and we can then asses how well it fits in the article and if it belongs? ClovisPt (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think an accusation of sexual assault against a key person (possibly one of only three with any sort of credentials who takes the idea seriously) involved in a theory is veering off topic. On the other hand, the article cited above does mention that he showed up for the search but did nothing to assist with it, which is directly relevant to this article. Of course I don't know how we could cite it without including the title of the article. But then I don't know that we should censor valid information over fear that the article title is discriminatory, especially when it's clear the article sticks to the objective facts: who claims what. Are there any other sources criticizing their active investigation, or lack thereof? DreamGuy (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this article would seem to be more thorough and on topic. DreamGuy (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to mention the allegations of sexual assault in this article until they show relevance to this article's subject. If Gannon doesn't deserve a page for himself then allegations regarding him should be even less noteworthy and deserving of even less coverage. The article mentioned by DreamGuy above would be a good place to go for current updates on the subject and a discussion of the families attitudes toward the theory. We need to be really careful because that "article" (more an editorial if you ask me) is so biased I can see the sardonic smirk on the writers face from here. That was written as a hatchet piece and should be handled as one, but the quotes and facts are still useful and it has the backing of editorial oversight.Padillah (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading chronology

I think there's a problem with the flow of events as described in the article that might be misleading our readers. Sensenbrenner's letter to the FBI was written before the FBI released the results of its reinvestigation. He clearly wrote it not knowing that they were already working on it. The way it is presented here, with it being mentioned after the FBI's report, gives the erroneous idea that he wrote it in response to the FBI report, which is not the case. The very thing he asked for was done. We do not know how he reacted to this report. We cannot make the article read like he doesn't accept that report when he knew nothing about it at the time he wrote it.

I imagine there's some way to rewrite all that so it's more clear, but I'd like others' input on it. DreamGuy (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to rework the article, especially with the very thorough article written by Rosario. Angryapathy (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the Rosario article is just what we need to fuel a decent rewrite of this and put some proper perspective on it. Getting those updated quotes into the article can only make the point clearer. Padillah (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Theory not explained very well and doubts of credibility of Gannon need to be added

The article should show better how the theory came about.

Gannon became suspicious a serial killer may be at work when there was three drowning victims in a 15 month period. Larry Andrews, Patrick McNeil and Joshua Bender ,according to the NY Times, were “white males, between 19 and 22 years old, medium build, clean cut, from stable backgrounds. Two were college students. Three were said to be found floating in city waterways with no apparent signs of trauma. The cause of death was ruled drowning, but how each entered the water has not been determined. A fourth young man, Peter Caraguilo, was also found in a subway tunnel during this same period, with a fractured skull. According to the chief medical examiner on Patrick McNeil’s autopsy report there were lines on his neck and eggs in the groin area. Gannon believes the lines are ligature marks from being choked to death. DR . Cyril Wecht , a Forensic pathologist claimed an indoor fly layed the eggs so the body was already dead before it was placed in the water.

Then

A MIDWEST CONNECTION?

Rumors of a serial killer along Interstate 94 spread after six college-aged men vanished in the midwest starting late in 2002 and in less than a 3 month period of time. Most while walking home alone late at night after drinking at parties or bars. One of them was Chris Jenkins in Minneapolis whose death was reclassified from accidental to homicide when it was discovered that he was clutching his own hair in his hand. The Jenkins family waited 4 years for law enforcement to do a DNA test on Chris Jenkin’s hair. Many people in LaCrosse ,Wisconsin also believe there may be a serial killer at work. Some are suspicious because the victims were a similar profile, the drownings are often in clusters and items belonging to victims were found near the same indian statue in the park in Lacrosse. Detective Gannon has claimed that most of the LaCrosse ,Wisconsin victims left one of the same 2 bars before they were a victim.

The article gives the impression that Gannon believes the smiley faces are evidence.

THE START OF THE SMILEY FACE MURDER THEORY

According to Kristi Piehl the reporter that broke the story, a prison inmate claimed the smiley faces were being left as a signature of the killers. The prison inmate was reported to have gave information about the Chris Jenkin’s case that was not made public. He is reported to have claimed an organization called the Dealers of Death are involved and that he threw Chris Jenkin’s off a bridge. Though no one doubts the inmate may have murdered more than once , he is not believed to be credible by many because he has changed his story and some believe he is not big or strong enough to have thrown Chris Jenkin’s off a bridge. Detective Gannon has said the smiley faces themselves are not evidence of serial killers. They have said they found 13 distinct markers and that they think it validates a connection.

More of Pat Brown's comments would be good,but she said some of this on Blog Talk Radio. Maybe there is someone else that mentions a book deal and there is a source??

Something fishy about their story. What made them suddenly decide the midwest drownings could be connected to east coast drownings? Are these people even credible?

Smiley face Killer Theory Losing Steam

Much of the theory has been debunked. The smiley faces are not that similar,though many of them have horns. There is no criteria for specifying the distance from the victim or time the grafitti appears.There is also no evidence of trauma with most victims.

The detectives also have not helped their theory any by making an announcement that they would reveal the suspects on FOX TV and then not do so. It was compared to the program when Geraldo opened Al Capone’s vault and found nothing in it. Part of their theory is that the profiles of the young men are too similar. This has been debunked because accidental drowning victims often fit similar profiles.

Bill Szostak, a retired New York firefighter and arson investigator whose son died in Albany, N.Y., was the blunt about his dissatisfaction.

“I feel Kevin is like a sponge – he latches onto the families, sucks the life out of them, and when he has nothing else to suck, he dumps them,” said Szostak, who said he doesn’t remember one conversation he had with the ex-cop in which Gannon didn’t mention needing money to continue to investigate the deaths.

Another critic is the former KSTP-TV investigative reporter who “broke” the “smiley-face killer” story in April 2008 . She says she no longer buys into Gannon’s story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.128.23 (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources, sources,sources. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory label?

How in any way is this a conspiracy theory related event? I think this article was placed in the wrong category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.102.43 (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Starting over again

User:68.114.132.7 has been posting rcently regarding this article. Since some of this user's comments seem to be getting lost in the other sections above, so I figured it would be a good idea to start a new section since previous discussions haven't been updated for about a year.

To User:68.114.132.7, I only ask that you provide links and/or reference information for your claims. If no other editor on Wikipedia can verify the information, then it should not be added. Angryapathy (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

By all means start over again. Maybe this time you could even make sure comments are sourced without ignoring the ones that get into the article that you personally believe to be true. Also be more careful with the false comments and suggestions that this is comparable to the spaggetti monster or that no police agencies take this seriously. Comparing a serial killer theory to something like this is ridiculous. Healthy skepticism is a good thing and that entails questioning your own beliefs and motives and not just everyone elses. I keep seeing the outcry for sources but it is not like you read them if you agree with a statement being made. Also keep in mind it seems rude that you make a comment after ignoring sources have not always fit what was was put in the article.From what I can tell it was only making laying out some suggestions and pointing out some facts on a theory you need to be educated on before you should even be thinking about if this is a fringe theory or not. You are fighting any attempt to lay out the facts so as a reasonable decision can be made as to if this is a fringe theory and instead seem to start with the assumption this is a fringe theory and make your facts fit the beliefs you already had. You also act so above it all that you think people need all these sources even when they are not trying to add to the article and only making comments and suggestions,yet feel no need to justify your own beliefs. Your attitude is not just the attitude of someone stuck up ,it is one of people that are hypocrites. I really am doing you a favor by telling you people how messed up you are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.153.188 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please list the sources which are being ignored. Angryapathy (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And from an uninvolved editor to the IP editor above. Please confine your comments to the actual edits and refrain from making comments about the editors. That only leads to animosity and does nothing to help create a better article. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

you were told a long time ago. you are not nor have ever been nuetral or even rational. If you are going to treat this and allow others to treat this as a fringe theory you need to know about the so called experts that do not support the theory. One is mentioned in this article

"Fox 9 Investigative Report on Ramsey County Medical Examiner's Office" Originally published: 12/1/10. Updated: 9/21/12

A 9-month long investigation by Fox 9 News raises serious concerns about a Minnesota medical examiner.

In the two-part series that aired on Nov. 22, 2010 reporter Jeff Baillion examines some of the determinations made by the Ramsey County Medical Examiner’s Office and, in particular, by Dr. Michael McGee, the county's chief medical examiner for the past 25 years. The report by Fox 9 highlights potential errors that may have caused offenders to go free, or the innocent to be wrongfully imprisoned.

The attorney for one family faults McGee for not examining all the evidence in her shooting death. Mark Gherty, the attorney for the family of Jane Nuemann, says McGee reached the conclusion that her death was a suicide before examining death scene photos. The case was later sent to other experts from around the state who arrived at a different conclusion--homicide. Gherty believes her husband, Jim, got away with murder.

In two other cases, men were given life sentences for murder when evidence casting doubt on their guilt was never heard by the jury. Both accuse McGee of making serious errors in their cases.

In the summer of 1996 while on a family vacation, Thomas Rhodes, a young vice president of a business firm, was driving a boat when he claims his wife, Jane, fell overboard. He circled back and jumped in to look for her but was unable to find her in the water. Her bruised body was recovered the following day. Dr. McGee declared it a homicide, and Rhodes was indicted for her murder. During the trial, McGee presented a graphic clay model that illustrated bruising on her face and neck. Rhodes was convicted. In a bid for a new trial, two other forensic pathologists reviewed the autopsy findings. One said the bruises occurred after Mrs. Rhodes had died and that her death was an accidental drowning. Another pathologist called McGee's findings, "highly speculative and unsupported by the medical evidence." He apologized to Thomas Rhodes' parents for the mistakes of his colleague. Despite the new testimony, Rhodes was denied a new trial in 2007. He is still in prison.

Kent Jones was found guilty in two separate trials for the murder of Linda Jensen. Dr. McGee's findings of sexual assault and his subsequent testimony played a pivotal role in Jones' conviction. An independent review of his findings showed that Dr. McGee had miscalculated crucial test results. The miscalculation opened a 4-hour window in which another perpetrator could have killed Jensen. The timing matches an eye witness account from a mail carrier who saw a man leaving the house. The Innocence Project is working with Kent Jones to get his conviction overturned.

telling the truth is not an attack. get over it.You believed your own lies . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.153.188 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The source for "Fox 9 Investigative Report on Ramsey County Medical Examiner's Office" is this, which is a page on blogspot, which means it is a blog, and has no editorial oversight. See WP:BLOGS. The page does however provide links to the FOX 9 investigation into Dr. McGee. (See [1] and [2]) However, the report does not mention anything about the "Smiley Face Murders". If you are implying that because a coroner allegedly made mistakes, and because of those mistakes, the ruled drownings are in fact murders, that would be a case of synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (see WP:Synthesis). If you can provide a reliable source (as per WP:Reliable sources) that explicitly states that McGee's alleged errors are inadvertantly covering up the "Smiley Face Murders," then it would be appropriate to add to a Wikipedia article. Angryapathy (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)