Talk:Winnie Ruth Judd

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Mid-importance).

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit warring

I have reverted Chloe93 most recent edit. Please discuss article changes here. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good online source

I've added a (free) link to Judd's 1993 New York Times obituary. The NY Times is generally regarded as a reliable source and has tons of coverage available to expand the article. The 83 articles prior to 1981 mentioning "Winnie Ruth Judd" are free to subscribers. --CliffC (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

While I understand that some of the material that was removed was un-encyclopedic writing, some of it, such as Winnie Ruth Judd being married to a doctor named William Judd, and that Ruth Judd was 26 years old at the time of the murders, as well as the ages of the victims, are known and undisputed facts of the case. Why were they removed?

The way the article stands now, the first paragraph, which should be a summary of the main facts, i.e., ages, names of the major participants, is lacking in information. It is not good writing because it is vague.

I have removed the so-called "weasel" words that were pointed out under "trial." Chloe93 (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be combining two sets of edits in your comments here, the first set started back in January after your text including "several gunshots rang out" was reverted by another editor here with the comment "WP is not a tabloid". Several months passed. Now, you and I are not in an "edit war", but engaged in the kind of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia great. Let's only talk about this month's edits.

The fact of Judd's age was lost in error when I simplified the lead here, you are correct that it belongs and I'll work it back in. The names and ages of the victims is a detail that doesn't belong in the lead paragraph but should be worked in following; I had planned to do that but got sidetracked working on the rest of the article. Judd's husband's name apparently got lost in the January edits, there is no reason not to have it – when complex edits get reverted, sometimes good content is thrown out with the rest.

Where you removed several of your edits here, I hadn't tagged them as 'weasel words' but to get some clarification about who was saying them - the police? Bommersbach? - to improve the article. I was surprised when you removed them instead of adding clarification. (But we should be careful to explain that some of what Bommersbach says is her opinion, and look for other sources.)

Let's go on from here. Regards, CliffC (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've done so far and thanks for adding more details about Halloran, and for the separating of main parts with headers. I still believe the first paragraph should be a bit more informative of the major players and their ages.

You are correct about authors' opinions as they may be just that. That's why I put Bommersbach's stuff in the "subsequent investigations" at the end. She has several interesting theories, such as the two-gun thing. But, there is a big difference between pure speculation, and "educated" conclusions based on known facts, such as the fact that some newspapers of the day, for a while anyway, reported the two-gun idea. This is where it gets "iffy" as to whether to include it as fact. In Bommersbach's case, being that her book is investigative, and not fiction, and as long as the text is plainly stated as being the author's conclusions, I feel it's okay to add at WP. What do you think?

Bommersbach also reports that autopsy testimony indicated LeRoi was shot with the muzzle against her head, which of course wouldn't align with how Judd described her self-defense struggle shooting from a short distance. Although this refutes Judd's story, it also bolsters the possibility that LeRoi was murdered by someone other than Judd (although it also may show Judd was lying about the self-defense thing.) Along with the missing mattresses, it supports the "shooting in bed" theory in that it shows the perp got rid of the mattresses to hide blood stains, something that Judd couldn't have done without a car and an accomplice.

I'd like to put that in at the end, maybe under "other theories of the crime," or something like that.

Thoughts? Chloe93 (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the two-gun thing, it seems fine to include but it would be good to say where Bommersbach got her information/ideas from. I tried using Google News to find any reference to that theory but ran out of ideas for search terms, but of course most papers of the era didn't end up online.

An "other theories of the crime" section sounds good. This next probably doesn't belong anywhere, but an interesting thing I ran into Googling was that one witness said he saw Judd's doctor husband, who claimed to be out of town that day, in town that day.

I put together a 'Background' section to give the ages and some information about the relationships among them. Regards, CliffC (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Background" section looks good. Thanks. I'll read up on the other theories and get to it asap. I will cite where the info comes from. I live in the Phx area and can get some pics of the crime house, old train station, etc. and post them to jazz it up too.

Also, I was thinking of contacting Bommersbach herself and see if there's anything she could add.

The husband in town sighting is very interesting, see if you can get more on that. Chloe93 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of internal Wiki links?

Why was the Golden State Limited train name (the name of the train Judd took to LA) as well its Wiki link, and the Phoenix union station link removed? This is pertinent and useful information that adds "color" to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe93 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was unintentional and it has been replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Crime Reader (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using "murder bungalow" is akin to a tabloid and not an encyclopedia, don't you think? I have twice chosen to undo "muder bungalow" today for that very reason. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Crime Reader (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continually using "murder bungalow" is just not encyclopedic. True Crime Reader (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like "murder bungalow," fine, that can be changed.

Why did you remove the entire section on the wrong location of the crime scene I just put in? If you did some Internet research you'd see I am correct and have backed it with references. "The New York Times" got it wrong; so did Bommersbach. This is significant. If I were a school kid trying to gather info for a report on the murder, I would want the location properly placed, and explained as such, which I did after researching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe93 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I moved the info about where the duplex is located up higher in the article in the section that talks about the murders themselves. And since this article is about Winnie Ruth Judd and not about Bommersbach or her book and what was right or wrong in it, I just don't think that it's necessary to note in this article that others have gotten it wrong for years. the page is supposed to be about the facts of the case, since it's an online encyclopedia. It's not supposed to be a review of what others have gotten wrong over the years, is it? And I think that murder bungalow is really bad form for an encyclopedia. It works for books about the subject and for the National Enquirer, but not for an encyclopedia. Don't you agree? True Crime Reader (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't agree. I'm not reviewing Bommersbach's book, I'm simply pointing out that since otherwise reliable and widely-read sources such as Bommersbach (her book is in libraries across the country and was originally published in 1994 by Simon and Schuster, a prominent publishing house), and the "New York Times" (among others) got the location wrong, it is pertinent to the facts of the case because it is a fact in and of itself. In other words, it has become a fact, but an incorrect fact, in the years following the murder. As I pointed out, suppose a high-school child that wants to do a report on the subject reads Bommersbach's book, then states the wrong location as fact? Not only is the report factually wrong, but that child goes about telling others the wrong facts. This is unethical and is akin to, say, stating that JFK was assassinated in "Schmit" Plaza in Dallas, instead of the factual location, Dealey Plaza. Don't you want wikipedia to be a source of *correct* facts? Chloe93 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it is pertinent to the facts of the case". No, it's not pertinent to the case, it's pertinent to the books and stories written about the case. If the police or prosecutors or defense had made a mistake regarding the location of the house, THEN it would be pertinent to the case. A child who wants to do a report of this case (and why a child would be doing a report on a double murder and subsequent dismemberment is beyond my scope of understanding, but whatever) isn't going to be interested is whether or not several books and sources writen decades after the murder occurred got the location of the house wrong. Your analogy about where JFK was shot is hardly applicable to this conversation. Yes, Wikipedia should be a source of correct facts, but authors and journalists getting an address wrong years after the fact is not something that is relevant to Winnie Ruth Judd, to the murders or murder victims, or to the trial. It is obviously important to you, but I still fail to see how it is important to the case itself. And if it were pertinent, it certainly doesn't merit an entire section in the article. I will be reverting your changes again.True Crime Reader (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to compromise on certain things, like the "murder bungalow" being changed because you feel it's a tabloid term. You also should compromise. This is what wikipedia is about. Chloe93 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its seems sufficient (and necessary) to properly cite the correct address, as has been nicely accomplished with http://www.winnieruthjudd.com/house1.html. The fact that someone, or several someones, got the address wrong seems to me extraneous to the subject of the article.

Could someone link bungalow the next time you're in there? Not sure that's a well-known term... --CliffC (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Cliff, and thank you for adding to the discussion. I see from how you did it above how to "link" to another Wikipeida article and will do so with bungalow now. True Crime Reader (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True Crime Reader: I hadn't seen where you cited the correct, present-day address (2909 N. 2nd St.) I agree that this citation is, along with the correct location depicted in the photos I created and uploaded, sufficient for this article. To argue any further is a waste of time. However, I still maintain that my mention of the wrong location is not as "out-of-line" as you want to think, especially since there are several sources on the Internet that, probably because they relied on Bommersbach's book, parroted the wrong location. To me, it's a problem because the error has become so wide-spread. I was only trying to correct a blunder in certain sources on the case (Bommersbach). As far as I'm concerned, citing the wrong location is a fundamental blunder (and not correcting this blunder in subsequent book printings even worse), but you're correct, this is not a review of her book. Time to move on, and thanks for your contributions. Chloe93 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One mattress was found

Under "Trial and conviction" the Wikipedia article originally stated, "The police maintained the two women were shot while asleep in their beds. The two mattresses were missing the night the police entered. No explanation was ever offered as to what had happened to them. " I reworded this because the statement gives the impression neither mattress was ever found when actually one mattress was later found with no blood stains.

The source for the original statement is the Amazon.com link for the book, The Trunk Murderess: Winnie Ruth Judd by Jana Bommersbach, http://www.amazon.com/Trunk-Murderess-Winnie-Ruth-Judd/dp/1590580648/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281866976&sr=1-1 with the "Click to Look Inside" feature.

Page 62 (3rd paragragh) does state "Police told the press they were convinced the women had been killed in their bedroom. Both mattresses were missing." But if you continue reading (to the 4th paragraph) it's written, "Police would later find one mattress, which contained no blood spots, in a vacant lot miles from the death house; the other mattress was never found."Slinkybinky (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRJ Employment

It's stated here that WRJ worked as a caregiver for a wealthy family while living in Phoenix. This did not happen in Phoenix. During her final escape she lived in San Francisco. This is where she was found when she was recaptured. Governor Ronald Regan signed extradition papers to return her to Phoenix. Arizona Governor Jack Williams then commuted her sentence and she was freed. AZ playwright (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]