Talk:Wineville Chicken Coop murders/Archive 1

Archive 1

Psychopathic versus psychiatric

I agree with the change from psychopathic to psychiatric. Although psychiatric ward is the preferred current day term, the source material uses the term psychopathic ward. The primary goal of psychopathic wards was to lock away dangerous individuals rather than to cure the mentally ill individual. --Dan Dassow (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Separate article on Gordon Stewart Northcott

Gordon Stewart Northcott and the Wineville Chicken Murders are so intertwined that a separate article on Northcott is probably not justified. --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note: there is currently also no article on Christine Collins or Walter Collins. These both redirect to this article. Creating articles for these people would be even more problematical since the names are relatively common. --Dan Dassow (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wonder if Christine Collins should redirect here, or to to a disambiguation page that contains links to both this and Changeling (film). Thoughts? Steve ^{T • C} 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Analogy would be John F. Kennedy disambiugation page pointing to his biography and the movie JFK. Doesn't make much sense to me. Christine Collins should point here, no disambiguation. User is made aware of movie in first paragraph of this article.Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I also asked at WP:NCP, and it was confirmed that the current redirect was the right one. I just wasn't entirely sure. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 08:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Christine Collins should have her own separate page.

Case details

There seems to be a lot of information missing from this article...the "case" section, for starters, begins "Among the boys kidnapped" or something like that, but there is no background. Were only boys kidnapped? Why "Chicken [Coop] Murders"? Why are all words in this article name capitalized? Tomer^talk 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of information missing from the article. I hope to expand this article (with proper citations) when after Changeling premieres on October 31, 2008. Also, not aware of the conventions for article titles at the time I created the article. If anyone would care to move this article to Wineville chicken murder and redirect this article, it probably would be a good idea.--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Addressing only the naming issue, a websearch indicates that the preferred capitalization for these murders is to capitalize the first letter of each word...there's another topic tho...and that's why "Wineville Chicken Murders" rather than "Wineville Chicken Coop Murders"? The former seems to indicate that either the murderer(s) or the murderees were chickens... A few links with no remarks on their usefulness: [1][2][3][4] The last one is the only one that doesn't use "Coop" in the name. (Another one, www.associatedcontent.com/article/778237/the_wineville_chicken_coop_murders.html is blocked by the spam filter, which is fine, check it at your leisure.) This other ghit, a blog post, doesn't use "Coop" either, but that's because all its information seems to be taken from this article... My recommendation would be to move this article to Wineville Chicken Coop Murders asap...if anyone were to ask... ;-) Tomer^talk 23:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked with an expert on the case. The preferred name for this case is "Wineville Chicken Coop Murders". How, do I move this to the proper place? --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of this, and responded on your talkpage. Cheers, Tomer^talk 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a section on the murders themselves. There isn't a ton of information on the web about the murders which isn't related to the Collins case.--24.218.221.152 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the information available on this case is from old newspaper articles and other sources not readily available on the web.--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. If the information is available in old newspapers, include the information from those old newspapers, and cite them properly. Just because something isn't readily accessibly online doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source (God forbid!)...it just means that they're harder to verify from my laptop. Something to check on, if you can find the articles in a scannable form, is whether the copyright has expired on these newspaper articles, and include scanned images of the articles. Just an idear. Tomer^talk 10:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The original police investigation and court records should be available through Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Superior Court. It means a lot of reading and occasionally a legal dictionary, but it can be reconstruced by someone living in the area. 71.34.68.186 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)A. REDDSON

The dates aren't consistent

The article says: In October of 1930, Northcott sent a telegram to Ms. Collins, saying that he had lied when he said that Walter was not one of his victims. He said that he would tell her the truth if she came to visit him, but when Ms. Collins arrived and confronted him, he claimed that he didn't know anything about it and was innocent. But it also says: Judge Freeman sentenced Northcott to be hanged[8] and the sentence was carried out October 2, 1930. Two days is an awfully short time to send a telegram, get a visit from Ms. Collins, and be hanged. Are we certain of this telegram story? - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As the article is currently written, the timeline is confusing. I will see what I can do to correct this with proper citations. Judge Freeman sentenced Northcott on February 13, 1929 to be hanged. Northcott repeatedly claimed that he killed up to twenty boys and then denied it. Northcott met with Christine Collins and the mother of the Winslow boys the night before he was hanged. At that time Northcott denied killing Walter Collins, Lewis Winslow and Nelson Winslow. He was hanged on October 2, 1930.--Dan Dassow (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC) [Corrected dates]--Dan Dassow (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

i went to see the movie and it did all happen in two days..he did it 2 days before because he figured she wouldnt come and he didnt really want to face her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.195.167 (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this an article about the movie or the facts of the case??

This article should be about the actual case not the film Changeling (film). Unfortunately, people have been convoluting the film and the actual case. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, that many of the dates in the article and the corresponding source materials have not been synchronized. At some point, this article will need to be rewritten so that these inconsistencies and discrepancies are eliminated. As the article stands now, much of it doesn't make sense, especially chronologically... Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack H. Brown

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_10871317
Father of Stater Bros. chairman played a role in legendary Wineville case
By Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/31/2008 10:05:07 PM PDT

Standing nearly 7 feet tall when clad in his signature white Stetson cowboy hat and cowboy boots, Jack H. Brown was a feared and respected lawman while serving as San Bernardino County Sheriff Walter Shay's top investigator in the 1920s.

The article has some interesting information about the case. I am not certain how to fit it into the Wineville Chicken Coop Murder article.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Concern raised about accuracy of article

In Revision as of 21:53, November 1, 2008 user 71.160.187.225 expressed the concern about the accuracy of the section The Murders, stating:

"You need to read the story by historian in Inland Empire Magazine. This is not exactly accurate what has been written here."

Unfortunately, the article in Inland Empire Magazine is not generally available.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead in needed for Hutchens

I know that this article is still evolving, but it seems that Arthur Hutchens is rather suddenly thrust into the article in the "Case and Trial" section. If someone more knowledgeable would look at this and see what they think, it would make the article easier to follow.--Paraballo (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is a general need to better introduce people in this article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nephew?

If both Gordon and Sanford had the same mother, then Sanford would be Gordon's half-brother, not his nephew, though Gordon didn't find that out till later, apparently. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Northcott and Sanford Clark did not have the same mother. Sarah Louise Northcott was the mother of Gordon Northcott. Winnifred Northcott Clark was the sister of Gordon Northcott, the daughter of Sarah Louise Northcott and the mother of Sanford Clark. Therefore, Sanford Clark was the nephew of Gordon Northcott. Beaconmike (talk)

As of 2008-11-12, the article contains the following text:

Only after Hutchens admitted he was not Christine Collins' son, ten days later, was she released.[21] This aspect of the case is depicted in the 2008 film Changeling.

However, I've just seen the movie, and believe the last sentence show read that this aspect of the case is NOT depicted in the movie. In the movie, Hutchens does not confess until the very end; long after Collins is released from the institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.215.210 (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy Regarding Movie Comments

As of 2008-11-12, the article contains the following text:

Only after Hutchens admitted he was not Christine Collins' son, ten days later, was she released.[21] This aspect of the case is depicted in the 2008 film Changeling.

However, I've just seen the movie, and believe the last sentence show read that this aspect of the case is NOT depicted in the movie. In the movie, Hutchens does not confess until the very end; long after Collins is released from the institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.215.210 (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hutchens versus Hutchins

Various sources have given Arthur Hutchins, Jr. last name as Hutchens. Arthur's daughter, Carol Hutchins, has definitely given the last name as Hutchins in this article.

Jones, Oliver (2008-11-14). "Inside Story: How a Boy Became the Changeling Impostor". People (magazine). Retrieved 2008-11-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This article provides information on what happened to Arthur Hutchins.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The murders section

This section is quite disjointed and borders on nonsensical. Some clarity on exactly where events take place would be appreciated, and an explanation of how we move from Canada to California would be especially relevant. tanankyo (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://2blackcats.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sanford-clark.jpg&imgrefurl=http://2blackcats.wordpress.com/2008/10/&usg=__OWo79mh_7kqCfewNOiyCc9jbPFI=&h=400&w=308&sz=24&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=PCyH4Mc4oZbcYM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSanford%2BClark%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

I found this site because i was curious what the real life people looked like after seeing the movie. It has more pictures of Gordon, Sanford and his mom/grandmother. It also has pictures of the Christine Collins and her son Walter along with a photo of the imposter boy. I don't know how to add pictures or i would do it myself. Hopefully someone would like to! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryker1026 (talk • contribs)

The article that User:CliffC references states: "All photos and captions were taken directly from the Los Angeles Public Library Archives, and are primary-source material; they are digital scans of actual evidence used in the real Northcott case in 1928."

These are copyrighted pictures that require a license fee for use. The original source is already noted in Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders#External_links.

• Los Angeles Public Library LAPL Photo Collection Keyword northcott This is a collection of 121 photographs associated with the case.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The unsigned message above was from User:Stryker1026, not me, I have now applied the {{unsigned}} template to it. I am aware of copyright policy. I'm guessing you saw my id from when I reverted someone's change of "hanged" to "hung" here recently. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

CliffC, thank you for letting me know that I mistakenly attributed this comment to you. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusing film with actual events

There has been a tendency for people to add information from Changeling (film). Although Changeling (film) is generally factual, it is not a documentary nor is it a citable source for a Wikipedia article. People have also added information without citing the source for the information. A large number of edits do not state the purpose of the edit. Citations are also being removed without stating a rationale for removing them. A number of edits have also corrupted citations. Finally, this article is frequently being vandalized. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire article "The boy who came forward and spoke of Walter's escape" is based on the film being a factual source - it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Walter Collins (did he survive)

Hi i was very moved by this story,but am confused on one thing and was wondering if anyone could help me out....

I thought i read at the end of the movie that Walter Collins was alive and that he had changed his name..Is this true?

Mum.of.six (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the text that is shown at the end of the Changeling:

"Following the hearings, Captain Jones was suspended, Chief Davis was demoted and Mayor Cryer chose not to run for re-election. For the rest of his life, Reverend Briegleb used his radio show to expose police misconduct and political corruption. To shake free of the scandal, the community of Wineville, California changed its name to Mira Loma. Christine Collins never stopped searching for her son."

Gordon Stewart Northcott killed Walter Collins with the help of his mother, Sarah Louise Northcott, and his nephew, Sanford Clark.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is said somewhere that Walter Collins was tied to a bed and tortured for a week before being killed by Northcott, his mother and the nephew boy. 86.154.115.231 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As his body was never recovered, but his living never again confirmed, it is generally believed he did die and his body never recovered; However, again, his body was not recovered, and we can not know for certain what became of him. 71.34.68.186 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)A. REDDSON

The fact of the matter regarding Walter's death is this. The State of California retrieved partial body parts from the grave of Walter Collins. Enough body material, hair, blood, clothing to satisfy the State, that Walter was murdered...............dead.............no question of a doubt. It was this same partial body evidence that allowed them to convict Gordon Northcott of the murders of the Winslow boys (and the Headless Mexican). Partial Body Evidence. So for anyone on this site who reports that they were unsure because Walter's full body was never recovered and that somehow Walter may still be alive, has never read the evidenciary matter that has been put forward in the James Jeffrey Paul book (heavily footnoted) Nothing is Strange With You. The film (Changeling) has taken Hollywood license with the facts of the matter to create in the audience the same type of hope that existed within Christine Collins point of view on the matter of her lost son. The film succedded in that matter 110% with the audience. However, it was not the truth of the matter at all. Sarah Louise Northcott was sentenced for the Murder of Walter Collins, and because the State had already sentenced Sarah, they found no reason to charge Gordon at all, as the State was pursuing the murders of the Winslow brothers and the Headless Mexican against Gordon.

Beaconmike (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

George Cyrus Northcott under Popular Culture

There is a sentence referencing George Cyrus Northcott being discussed "above" and being one of two characters left out of the film, but there is no prior reference to him in the article. Was he Gordon's father?

"The film depicts all the major figures above, save two, Sarah Louise Northcott and George Cyrus Northcott."

Cculhane (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In a previous version of this article, George Cyrus Northcott had been identified as Gordon Stewart Northcott's father. I restored this information. --Dan Dassow (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Is he really a major figure? 124.171.160.143 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

George Cyrus Northcott was a major figure. He brought Gordon Stewart Northcott to California. He bought the property for Gordon Stewart Northcott so that GSN could establish a chicken ranch. He testified at GSN's trial. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sanford Clark

I have added some information about what happened to Sanford Clark, but am not wiki-skilled enough with tags to add the references. If someone could do that, it'd be great. The information came from the CBC News and the Regina Leader Post:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2008/05/19/sask-film.html

and

http://www2.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/arts_life/story.html?id=4c8e3236-1a4f-4d78-a331-ffec10e8f905&p=2

Thank you. I will add the citation when I get a chance. I've intended to reference these articles, but misplaced the link to them. --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I added these citations and included additional information from the Leader-Post. --Dan Dassow (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping of the boys

The article does not state how the boys were kidnapped. I think the article needs more details on the victims, as it says there may have been 20 young boys murdered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a reliable source for how Gordon Stewart Northcott kidnapped the boys. The police were only able to verify the murder of four boys, an unidentified Mexican teenager, Walter Collins, brothers Lewis and Nelson Winslow. According to the press accounts of the time, Gordon Stewart Northcott enjoyed the attention and would continually change his story on what happened. There is a lot more information available on the case that could prove interesting. For instance, initially, Christine Collins and the police believed that Walter Collins, Jr. had been kidnapped as a result of Walter Collins, Sr. being in prison. Nelson Winslow, Sr. led a lynch mob with the intent of hanging Gordon Stewart Northcott before the trial. Gordon Stewart Northcott claimed he provide young boys to clients in surrounding area. S. S. "Sammy" Hahn was a famous divorce attorney who defended Aimee Semple McPherson. He commited suicide by hang heavy weight around his neck and jumping in his pool. --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is one Internet site called Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood which states that Christine Collins gave Walter a dime to go see a movie, and that was the last time she ever saw him. It also says that it was initially believed that the kidnapping was part of a vendetta against Walter, Collins, Sr. Is it absolutely certain that young Walter was one of Northcott's victims? Can they not do a DNA test now on the bones found on the Northcott property to determine the identities? I am assuming the victims have distant relatives living today.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence shows that Gordon Stewart Northcott, Sanford Clark and Sarah Louise Northcott all played a role in the murder of Walter Colllins. Gordon Stewart Northcott dismemebered the bodies of his victims and destroyed the remains with quicklime. DNA would not have survived the quicklime. He then scattered the remains in the surrounding countryside. These pictures from the LA Public Library show that only bone fragments were recovered from the chicken ranch.
"Bones of victims of Gordon Stewart Northcott found at the 'murder farm.'"[5]
"Dirt taken from shallow supposed graves of the victims at the "murder farm". It is streaked with lime and will be chemically analyzed. Officers reported finding two graves in a chicken coop and several small bones in a lime-filled hole. Authorities think the bodies may have been destroyed by quicklime.[6] --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep thinking of the Black Dahlia murder 20 years later. There was a big cover-up then as well. It's possible Northcott provided the boys to a ring of pedophiles as sex slaves. Do you know if they made snuff movies back in 1928? Also, there's photo of Walter Collins, Jr. on a site. Would it be possible to use it for the article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Boleyn; This is a wiki article, that is supposed to be treated with only the facts and not supposition. The notion that you suggest that Northcott provided boys to a ring of pedophiles as sex slaves is absolutely preposterous, other than that was speculated at the time, BUT, as you know, it was never proven whatsoever. Please stick to the truth of what is known and can be proved, and not your wild speculation about sex slaves. Beaconmike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Vandalism

This article has been vandalised by IP 68.4.64.121 but I cannot undo it due to intermediate edits.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, Thank you for reporting the vandalism. I believe that 58.11.71.237 has taken care of the problem.--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Young Walter Collins' father: Conrad or Walter Sr.?

Sources in this article show a death certificate for a man named Walter Collins. However another source for this article cites a 1920 Census record which indicates that Christine Collins was married to Conrad Collins (*and young Walter was 1 year old at the time of the Census record). See the Larry Harnisch articles in L.A. Times.

It appears that "Walter Collins Sr." is not quite correct, then. Perhaps a person named Walter Collins was living in Los Angeles at the time, but he was not related? --SidP (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Larry Harner's series of article related to Changeling and Christine Collins went from Changeling stories -- Part I October 26, 2008 through Voices -- Christine Collins, January 12, 1933 February 11, 2009. Changeling -- Finding Christine Collins November 10, 2008 does report that Christine Collin's husband was named Conrad. However, this was likely an alias that Walter Collins, Sr. used. Thanks to Chris Garmire at the California State Archives, the Daily Mirror posted the letters of Christine Collins, written to authorities in an attempt to get her husband freed from prison. These were published from Christine Collins of 'Changeling' in her own words December 14, 2008 through Voices -- Christine Collins, January 12, 1933 February 11, 2009. Christine Collins consistently signs her letters Mr. Walter Collins. If you read the whole series you will discover that Walter Collins, Sr. was Christine Ida Dunne Collins's husband.--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Undo's Back to Stable version

The last stable version was 05:33, November 24, 2009 4.131.21.61 (talk) (32,055 bytes). The next edit "06:28, November 24, 2009 71.129.235.17 (talk) (31,570 bytes)" corrupted the citation template. The only way to get back to a stable version of the article was to undo to the last stable version. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the 'escape' scene from the film as compared to what happened in real life.

I want to initiate a discussion with whomever is in charge of this page ( I think I know who is in charge).

The updated facts surrounding the possibility of a boy escaping from the chicken-coops (including Walter Collins) are now much more updated from the '96 or '98 Cecilia Rasmussen article that has been utilized as a source regarding that "a boy came forward several years later whom police thought to have been murdered at Wineville".

Let's hash out our various opinions on this topic and then once we agree, let's agree to let the final edit stand until additional information becomes available regarding the escape scene from the film.

I have absolutely no concern over what is posted on the Wiki article Changeling regarding the escape scene.......my only concern is when people read Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and believe something that current information does not offer any substantiating evidence.

I also thought that the editors had made a decision regarding this matter,but their information has been removed from the article.

I have absolutely no interest in editing and re-editing my opinion with whomever keeps editing me out (even with footnotes), so lets develop the discussion here and see where we agree or disagree.

(Beaconmike (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Michael B)

I suggested we delete: "The screenwriter of the film Changeling, J. Michael Straczynski, has stated on IMDB[dubious – discuss] that from his research, the boy that came forward "had been at Wineville, that much was known". There has never been any evidence put forward to suggest that this boy was imprisoned in the chicken-coops, escaped or even knew of Walter Collins. This boy was simply one of the many young boys whom Northcott would kidnap, bring back to the ranch, molest and then take home later in the evening to their neighborhood. The screenwriter has stated that "the authorities and the press knew about this boy, but that in an effort to save the family from further embarrassment, the police and press chose to bury the story".[citation needed]". The IMDb talk pages is not a reliable source for information and the statement from Mr. Straczynski no longer exists. --Dan Dassow (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Mr. Dassow, and I am the original author of the comments that Mr. Dassow suggests that we delete. Let's go ahead and remove my comments as recommended by Mr. Dassow.

Beaconmike (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit made as indicated. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of victims

Gordon Stewart Northcott claimed to have killed as many as twenty boy. However, he soon recanted. The police was unable to find any evidence of murders beyond Walter Collins, Lewis and Nelson Winslow, and the nameless Mexican boy. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Kurz Source

The source by John Kurz is cited a few times in the article. However, I'm concerned about the source's reliability. 3 issues:

1. It does not actually mention anything about the corruption of the LAPD.
2. The source is located on a questionable website. Any person can just write anything and add a "Historical Society" after their name.
3. John Kurz may actually be Don Kurz who has written the unpublished Wineville District Murders, 1928. It can be found at the Local History Resource Center at the Riverside Public Library.[7]

As such, I'm removing the corruption statement and adding a self-published tag.

-Temporal User (Talk) 11:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Several sections need a rewrite for encyclopedic tone

In particular the Sanford Clark section. Lots of flowerly language and WP:PEACOCK terms that are very POV in a hallmark sort of way. The paragraphs about how Clark lived up to "Kelly's promise" is particularly cringe-worthy and overly sugar-coated. The Christine Collins section could also use a look but, really, there are several spots throughout the whole article that takes on a terribly informal and unencyclopedic tone. 168.156.99.68 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with this assessment, especially the Sanford Clark section. The problem with a self published source was also identified. As time permits, I will review the article in an effort removed the POV element from the article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the author of the "flowery language, cringe-worthy and overly sugar-coated" words that are included in the Sanford Clark section. I did not originate those words, as they are footnoted and quoted from one of only 2 books devoted to the History of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I don't disagree that the adjectives (used to describe Sanford Clark), are as defined; flowery language, cringe-worthy and overly sugar-coated.

I don't disagree with a re-write, but I do want to stress something that I feel very strongly about.

There are many who read this article, and/or comment on other web-pages (that discuss the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders), or those who insert their personal opinions about Sanford Clark on this Wiki page, who believe (even though Sanford Clark was determined by the State of California to be an "unwilling participant" in the murders of the victims), that Sanford Clark is just as morally corrupt and heinous as Gordon and Sarah Northcott. Some feel that Sanford Clark should have been hung or locked up for life for his "unwilling participation" in the murders. Those attitudes towards Sanford Clark are simply personal opinions expressed by various persons, but there is NO EVIDENCE (that has ever been shown or spoken of in the historical record) that has ever reflected the point of view that the State of California ever viewed Sanford Clark as a willing participant.

My reason for inserting the 'syrupy' quotes, was an attempt to establish that the historical record viewed Sanford Clark as a victim and not a willing participant in those murders. This is exactly the point-of-view (and hence the historical record) that is reflected by the State of California as it related to Sanford Clark. The State of California determined that it was Gordon Northcott and Sarah Louise Northcott, who were heinous, murderous and morally corrupt, and were convicted as such.

Any re-write that portrays Sanford Clark as a willing participant in these murders, would be 110% at odds against the historical record, and how the State of California viewed Sanford Clark.

It is important the Wiki reflect that the State of California (which is the historical record in this matter), did not view Sanford Clark as anything but a victim who was forced to participate (in those murders), out of fear for his own life (as determined by the State of California).

"Stockholm Syndrome" (relationship of conforming, that develops between Victims and Kidnappers) has been discussed in other articles as an explanation as to what happened to Sanford Clark at that time; however, Stockholm Syndrome did not come to the public's eye until after the Symbionese Liberation Army and their kidnapping of Patricia Hearst. Perhaps some inclusion or linkage to Stockholm Syndrome would also be useful in helping readers to better understand Sanford Clark's state of mind during his kidnapping and why the State of California did not consider Sanford Clark as a murderous, heinous, or morally corrupt individual that warranted prosecution.

Beaconmike (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Cecilia Rasmussen article must not be held as the Gold Standard regarding the murder of Walter Collins.

I do not have the time today to present my body of thought, so I am just going to post the title and add the body as time permits.

The body of my talk page will speak directly to the fact that the Cecilia Rasmussen article [Rasmussen, Cecilia (1999-02-07). "The Boy Who Vanished–and His Impostor". Los Angeles Times] regarding whether or not Walter was murdered does not include the factual evidenciary matter that was presented by the Investigators and the State of California regarding the murder of Walter Collins.

Ms. Rasmussen's article reports on the viewpoint of what Christine Collins 'chose to believe' regarding the murder of her son, and NOT what the State of California and Investigator's proved in a court of law (and is the Historical Record in this matter).

When anyone is confronted with evidence that their son has been murdered AND the Courts convict and sentence someone for that murder, I can consider that the person in question is in fact, dead. I am not sure what to call it from a psychological standpoint when anyone denies the evidence presented and believes that the court, the investigators, the jury, are all false and wrong. From a lay person's perspective, that would be called denial.

Anyone with a sane mind would have to conclude that for Christine Collins to deny these facts, she must be considered in denial. Just because Christine Collins was in denial, and Ms. Rasmussen reports on Christine Collin's denial, does not mean that Christine Collins denial now should be regarded as the 'Truth' of the matter.

Ms. Rasmussen's article is filled with historical inaccuracies regarding timelines, dates and years (as she wrote about in her article in 2/99). I will detail the historical inaccuracies in Ms. Rasmussen's article in my discussion of her column.

Ms. Rasmussen was an employee of the Los Angeles Times at the time of her article in '99. I contacted the Los Angeles Times and they gave me her last known email address. I have written to Ms. Rasmussen in an attempt to develop her responses to questions regarding the accuracy of her column on this matter. She has never responded, however I do grant that the email address could be invalid by now.

I don't need Ms. Rasmussen to respond anyway. The Historical timeline that exists is well documented and does not mesh at all with the timelines published in Ms. Rasmussen's article.

I find it incredibly interesting that Ms. Rasmussen's article reads like a skeletal structure for the screenplay written by J. Michael Straczynski (of the film Changeling), in that the historical inaccuracies portrayed in the film (Changeling), mirror Ms. Rasmussen's article's timeline exactly, and are at odds 100% with documented timelines that can be proven (again from the historical record). We have to take Ms. Rasmussen article for what it is............a perspective written from Christine Collins 'supposed' point of view. (We all know that Christine Collins is dead and that Ms. Rasumssen did not interview her directly, so Ms. Rasmussen's article is simply supposition at best and does not follow the documented history of the truth of Walter Collins and what took place at Wineville Ranch).

We must not allow the Cecilia Rasmussen Article to be considered as the Gold Standard regarding the Historical Accuracy (of this Wiki Page) or of the factual evidence regarding the murder of Walter Collins as presented by the State of California. I am no journalist, but it seems to me that somewhere there must be a journalistic set of standards (especially by the LA Times) that should prohibit this type of 'National Enquirer Standards' to be used in such a block-buster case. From my viewpoint, her article is irresponsible at it's best, and I believe should never again be allowed to grace the pages of the page 'Wineville Chicken Coop Murders' again, as it has nothing to do with the historical record in any way shape or form, and is quiet misleading in its application and confusing to the general reader of this page. More appropriately, it should only be allowed to be footnoted in the page that has to do with the film 'Changeling'................which is a Hollywood Movie that has very little to do with the truth of the matter in the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.

Beaconmike (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Cecilia Rasmussen Article: The Boy Who Vanished--and His Impostor / L.A.Times Then and Now Column / Cecilia Rasmussen February 07, 1999|CECILIA RASMUSSEN

(beaconmike comments: I have outlined and numbered in Bold, those quotes from the Cecilia Rasmussen article (below) that are historically false. I will discuss these areas in detail for the reader).

<Article struck as WP:COPYVIO>

Beaconmike (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Beaconmike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

THE FOLLOWING IS A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL INACCURACIES CONTAINED IN THE CECILIA RASMUSSEN ARTICLE REFERENCED ABOVE (identified above in Bold and Numbered 5 in total).

Far too many people use the Rasmussen article as the gospel truth, when the identified parts of her article are at odds 100% with the Historical Record.

The Rasmussen article can no longer be used as the Gold Standard, when it comes to the Historical Record in the matter of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The Rasmussen article must be supplanted with either the Riverside Historical Society facts or the James Jeffrey Paul book 'Nothing is Strange with You' facts.

As such, it would mean that the Wineveile Chicken Coop Murders, in conjunction with the film page, The Changeling, require a re-write in certain sentences or sections on their respective Wiki Pages, that do not agree with the Historical Record in this matter.

Let's review the areas where it can be proven that the Rasmussen article does not conform at all with the Historical Record:

Rasmussen fiction: (1) "But what it never had was resolution"

There are 2 points of view that one can consider when one looks at whether or not Walter Collins survived the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.

One of the few reasons that Christine Collins believed that Walter was alive, was because the State of California never produced Walter's whole-body; therefore he must be alive. That is the perspective of a Christin Collins viewpoint.

The State of California not only believed 100% differently than Christine Collin's perspective, they proved in a court of law that the Christine Collins viewpoint was historically inconsistent with the facts and truth of the matter regarding whether Walter survived Wineville or not.

The legal and historically accurate view of the State of California regarding whether Walter had survived the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders was the following:

During the murder investigation, police searched the three graves that Sanford Clark had identified to authorities, and discovered "51 parts of human anatomy (partial-body) ... those silent bits of evidence, of human bones and blood, have spoken and corroborated the testimony of living witnesses". [1 -James Jeffrey Paul book, pg. 224]

While Walter Collins 'whole-body' had never been found, it was this 'partial-body' evidence that allowed authorities, and the State of California, to conclude that Walter Collins had been murdered (coupled with Sanford Clark's testimony at the sentencing hearing of Sarah Louise Northcott). [2- James Jeffrey Paul book]

What normal Mother would want to ever believe that their own son had been sexually molested for days and then cruelly murdered as proven by the State of California in the matter of Walter Collins? I don't think any Mother would want to ever believe that their son was murdered. Just because one does not want to believe that their son has been murdered, does not make it true that they were not murdered...............dead.

Christine Collins chose to stay in denial over the murder of her son Walter, and chose to believe that Walter may have still been alive in spite of the fact that the State of California had absolutely no doubt that Sarah Louise Northcott, Gordon Northcott and Sanford Clark had all participated in the murders of the two Winslow Brothers and Walter Collins, and that Walter Collins was indeed dead.

IN CONCLUSION REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THE CASE OF WALTER COLLINS EVER HAD ANY RESOLUTION OR NOT

The State of California absolutely proved 110% that Walter had been murdered.

The Rasmussen article is written from the viewpoint of historical facts, and not Christine Collins viewpoint, so the statement in the Rasmussen article is completely at odds with the Historical Record in this matter of the death of Walter Collins.

"But what it never had was resolution".............for Christine Collins, yes, but for the State of California, no.........nor for anyone else who ponders this historical matter of whether Walter survived Wineville.

It is critical that we keep in mind that the Rasmussen article is not written from the viewpoint of Christine Collins, but from the viewpoint of historical facts, and therefore the Rasmussen article in this sentence is completely false and at odds with the Historical Record.

Rasmussen fiction: (2) "(Gordon)........had been charged with beheading a youth, one of 11 children they sexually assaulted and murdered in Riverside County...........

Another Rassmussen fictional insert that is completely at odds with the Historical Record.

People have quoted and inserted this portion of the Rasmussen article as proof that 11 boys were both sexually assaulted and murdered at Wineville.

The historical record shows us that Gordon Northcott, his mother Sarah Louise Northcott and Sanford Clark were only sentenced and / or implicated in the murders of 4 youth, not 11:

1) Walter Collins - for which Sarah Louise Northcott was sentenced in the murder of Walter Collins. 2) The 2 Winslow Brothers - Gordon Northcott was sentenced and hung for the murders of the 2 Winslow brothers. 3) The Headless Mexican - Gordon Northcott was sentenced and hung for the murder of the Headless Mexican.

Sanford Clark was charged with being an unwilling participant in the murders of Walter Collins and the 2 Winslow brothers.

There may have been 11 victims of Gordon's kidnapping and sexual assault, but the State of California never introduced any evidence that indicated that Gordon, his mother, Sarah or Sanford were guilty of murdering 11 people.

11 murders never happened and this is clearly an example of how the Rasmussen article is not only historically inaccurate, but is extremely dangerous to the Historical Record of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murder story.

Because the Rasmussen article appeared in the LA times in '99, it somehow came to be construed to be consistent with, and representative of the Historical Record. In this matter, the Rasmussen article is in complete odds with the truth of the Historical Record (in areas that are being pointed out here).

IN CONCLUSION, WE KNOW FROM THE HISTORICAL RECORD THAT THERE WERE ONLY 4 YOUTH MURDERED AT WINEVILLE AND NOT 11. THE RASMUSSEN ARTICLE IS FALSE IN THIS REGARDS.

Rasmussen fiction: (3) "A Lifelong Search"

It is generally established that Christine Collins lost her job and was in poor health. Over many years, she pleaded with the warden and the parole board to release her husband on humanitarian grounds so she would have income to live. She spent a large portion of her time on this effort. Captain J.J. Jones never paid Christine Collins the judgment for false imprisonment. She was destitute and depended upon family friends for help. She did not have the resources to actively pursue search for Walter Collins Jr.

I am not in question of the above mentioned information.

The following quotes from the James Jeffrey Paul book help to establish that Christine Collins did not believe that her son was murdered by Gordon, and that she was searching and taking steps (in the beginning) to determine if Walter had been ever seen at Wineville (as in asking Gordon such). 1) We know that Christine Collins did interview Gordon Northcott in Prison when extradited to the United States from Canada on his first or second evening here in the country (December 7th, 1928) in an attempt to have Gordon Northcott positively tell her that he either killed or at least remembered Walter Collins:

12/7/1928 "Mrs. Collins asked Northcott if he had killed her son, and after listening to his repeated lies, confessions and recantations, concluded that Gordon Northcott was insane. Because Northcott did not seem to know whether he had even met Walter, much less killed him, Mrs. Collins clung to the hope that her son was still alive". [James Jeffrey Paul book pgs. 131, 132]

10/1930 "Just a few hours prior to Gordon Northcott's execution, Mrs. Collins became the first woman in more than three decades to receive permission to visit a serial killer on the eve of his execution at San Quentin. In October 1930, Northcott sent her a telegram saying he had lied when he denied that Walter was among his victims. He promised to tell the truth, if she came in person to hear. But upon her arrival, he balked. "I don't want to see you," he said when she confronted him. "I don't know anything about it. I'm innocent." A news account said, "The distraught woman (Mrs. Collins) was outraged by Northcott's conduct - 'All he told me was another pack of lies'- but comforted by it, as well: Northcott's ambiguous replies and his seeming refusal to remember such details as Walter's clothing and the color of his eyes gave her (Christine Collins) continued hope that her son still lived."[James Jeffrey Paul book pgs. 239-240].

What does not make sense at all to me is that if Christine Collins is searching for Walter Collins, and is determined to ask Gordon Northcott the whereabouts of Walter, why does Christine Collins choose to NOT ask or speak witheither Sanford Clark and/or Sarah Louise Northcott (the only other 2 people whom were present at Wineville (besides Gordon Northcott.)?

If Christine goes to all of this trouble to speak to Gordon about Walter, it makes no sense that she would not attempt to speak with Sanford or Sarah. Given though........Sarah had already confessed to the murder, and the Sanford had already identified to Police that Walter was a victim.

Perhaps Christine Collins had no need to speak to the other 2 accused, as they would have told her what she did not want to hear.

There is no historical record of Christine Collins ever attempting to speak to these individuals regarding whether or not Walter was ever at Wineville.

How hard did Christine really search for Walter, given that she did not attempt to contact either Sanford or Sarah, who were in custody just miles from where Christine lived?

It is a notion that Rasmussen asserts that Christine searched for the rest of her life for Walter, but the historical record and facts, seem to suggest that she did not.

There is absolutely no indication that Christine Collins "searched the rest of her life' to find Walter. Christine did not have the financial wherewithal, physical health or even the seeming interest to attempt to interview Sanford Clark or Sarah Louise Northcott. Christine wanted to hear from Gordon so bad that Walter had been murdered, but she chose to never interview the 2 others whom would have told her what she needed to hear, that Walter had been murdered and at Wineville.

Very strange to me, very strange.

I am certain that any Mother would search in their heart for their missing son, as happens today, but the notion that Christine Collins traveled in LA to pursue leads that might lead to Walter's whereabouts, are not in the historical record at all and are as ridiculous as the notion that OJ Simpson continues to fund detectives to determine who killed his wife and Ron Goldman to this day.

We also lose track of Christine Collins years later and what she did with her life and where her life took her remain a mystery in that no one has produced any evidence as to when Christine Collins died or where she was buried or what she did with her life after the fate of Walter died in the mind of the public's eye.

IN CONCLUSION REGARDING RASMUSSEN AND THE SEARCH FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE............THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH A THEORY AND SOME EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES THAT CHRISTINE COULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE REST OF HER LIFE.

Rasmussen Fiction: (4) "....never giving up hope"

I do wish to speak to the Rasmussen article where Cecilia Rasmussen introduces the concept of Christine Collins and "hope" to the reading public 4 different times over a period of 7 years.

One can only have the concept of hope introduced to their minds once, in that there is no indication whatsoever that Christine Collins ever lost her hope when she discovered that Walter's whole-body had never been found at Wineville.

Rasmussen article: 9/1928 "But Collins refused to believe it (Walter had been murdered), especially because her son's body was never found on the Northcotts' chicken ranch in Wineville"....................certainly this is the first indication that Christine has hope that Walter is still alive and only missing.

In 12/7/1928 we also know that Christine interviewed Gordon Northcott and walked away with the belief that her son was still alive, thus her hope continued to be alive and well. James Jeffrey Paul book pg.131

On 10/1930, Gordon is executed and Christine is allowed to speak to Gordon, but Gordon refuses, but it continues to convince Christine that Walter is alive and that Gordon is insane, as he can't remember anything about Walter, so therefore, Christine continues to have hope that Walter is alive.

Around 10/1935, Rasmussen writes: that a boy appears who was thought to have been murdered at Wineville and this gives Christine the hope that she needs to continue to search for Walter the rest of her life.

My point is this. Christine Collins had hope starting from 9/1928, and never lost it, if we are to believe the Rasmussen article. The interjection of the word Hope in my mind several time in the article, is almost theatrical or Disneyesque in nature, and cannot continue to occur throughout this 7 year period, given that there are no examples that cite that Christine Collins, Lost hope ever. Any great writer knows how to engage the reader, and Cecilia Rasmussen is a great writer who skillfully knows how to capture the attention of any reader. I just question why the image of 'Hope' is mentioned so many times in her article, over and over and over.

IN CONCLUSION REGARDING 'NEVER GIVING UP HOPE' IN THE RASMUSSEN ARTICLE, I TEND TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS OVERLY-MENTIONED FOR THEATRICAL PURPOSES TO ENGAGE THE READER. WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT CHRISTINE HAS THE CONCEPT OF HOPE IS IN 9/1928. YET THE RASMUSSEN ARTICLE HAS US BELIEVE THAT CHRISTINE DID NOT HAVE HOPE UNTIL 7 YEARS LATER (10/1935) WHEN THE FICTIONAL CHARACTER APPEARS, DAVID CLAY. I SUPPOSE THAT ONE CAN HAVE HOPE OVER AND OVER AND OVER, BUT I DON'T THINK CHRISTINE COLLINS EVER LOST HOPE AFTER 9/1928. THE TIMELINES JUST DON'T ADD UP AS TO WHEN CHRISTINE FIRST HAS HOPE.

Rasmussen Fiction: (5) "Five years after Northcott's execution, one of the other boys he was accused of killing was found alive and well."

This is the most significant and controversial of all the Rasmussen column. This singluar sentence has been used by millions of people who saw the film Changeling to justify in their minds that; Walter could have escaped, Walter could be alive, (were Walter to be alive at the time of the writing of the Rasmussen column '99, Walter would have been 80)The State of California was mistaken in sentencing Sarah Louise Northcott for the murder of Walter Colllins, partial-body parts identified as Walter's were not, the key witness for the State of California, Sanford Clark was a blatant liar, Police Chief Jones was lying to Christine Collins about Walter's death, Sanford Clark mistakenly identified Walter as a victim of murder, the screenwriter J. Micahel Straczynski was duped into believing that the Cecilia Rasmussen article was the basis for the David Clay scene and much of his screenplay,the film Changeling included a scene wherein a boy comes forward 'David Clay' to confess that he escaped along with 2 other boys, one of which was Walter from Wineville.

Included here is a quote from J. Michael Straczynski to the reading public regarding this notion of a boy who came forward...........David Clay, from the website IMDB.

"There were a number of references to a boy found years later who escaped after the Collins murder. The most recent is also the briefest, but at least it's in a place where it can be easily found online, here's the citation. The Los Angeles Times, LA Then and Now column, 2/7/99. The article goes on to reinforce that it was the discovery of this boy, who was presumed dead on the ranch, that gave Christine Collins hope that her son might still be alive. Which is exactly what is presented in the film." - J. Michael Straczynski (screenwriter for the film Changeling).

What makes this entire scenario unbelievable is that (apparently) neither Ms. Rasmussen nor Mr. Straczynski bothered to consider in 1999, the Historical record (only located 45 minutes to the West of Los Angeles County in Riverside County) in this matter of those that the State of California considered murdered by Gordon Northcott, Sarah Louise Northcott or Sanford Clark ( unwilling participant).

The Historical fact of the matter, is that there were only 3 boys ever held in the chicken-coops at Wineville; Walter Collins and the 2 Winslow Brothers. They were all murdered and their graves were in the exact locations as told to authorities by Sanford Clark. Sanford Clark was present in the building and construction of the chicken-coops and never left the property for the 2 and a half years he held captive there. Neither the State of California, nor Sanford Clark ever spoke of any more than 3 boys ever held and murdered at the Chicken-coops. There were never multiple boys held at the Chicken-Coops, and Sanford Clark tells of no story where multiple boys escaped with Walter being one of them. In fact, when Sanford was in protective custody of the Police around 9/1928, Sanford specifically picked out from a group of photos one of Walter Collins as one of the boys whom was murdered. Sanford did not tell a tale of any boys escaping.

I do not know where Ms. Rasmussen got her facts that the Gordon Northcott was accused of killing a boy that later came forward. It is impossible for her statement to be true, as we know that the State of California only accused and prosecuted Gordon Northcott for the murders of the Headless Mexican and the 2 Winslow Brothers, all of whom were murdered. As the police already had sentenced Sarah Northcott for the murder of Walter Collins, they chose to NOT charge Gordon, but he was implicated.

I will be very polite here and simply say that Ms. Rasmussen must have gotten her facts mixed up about how many boys the State charged Gordon Northcott with murdering.

I can not say this in simpler words: The notion that a boy whom authorities believed had been murdered by Gordon Northcott was found 5 years after Gordon Northcott's execution is not true.

Sanford Clark never mentions this boy to authorities or in his testimony, nor does the State of California, in its charges against Sarah Louise Northcott or Gordon Northcott.

In an extended conversation with the screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski some months later on IMDB, Mr. Straczynski changes his mind regarding his original comments to the readers of IMDB, when pressed about this 'boy who came forward'.

Here is his most recent comment regarding the 'boy who came forward':

"as to the found boy...the police and press at the time identified this as a boy who had been at the ranch. There weren't a great deal of details given, because they were trying to respect the privacy of the family, but that much was established." - J. Michael Straczynski

OK, imagine this...............a boy who was formerly supposed to have been murdered at the Wineville Chicken Ranch by Gordon Northcott is found 5 years later (according to the Rasmussen article, which is false). The Walter Collins story was the hottest story in the press at that time and for years afterwards. It was a National, if not World-Wide story, simliar to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.

Since we know that newspapers are in the business to sell newspapers and that any updates on the missing Walter Collins story would have made front page headlines.

So, we are to believe that this boy is found 5 years later and may know something about whether or not Walter Collins is alive, and that the police, the press all turn their back on this story, about whether or not Walter escaped (according to Rasmussen and Straczynski)? No one even bothers to ask the boy what happened to Walter, nor report on it, nor notify Christine Collins of the matter.

This story would have made some of the most incredible headlines of the time had it ever happened. There is no existence of such a story, let alone even a column on Page 5 regarding a boy whom was found some 5 years later.

"The boy was found 5 years later." Found by who? Where had he been for 5 years not attempting to get back to his parents and family only 1 hour away?

It is as preposterous as thinking that the moon is made of blue-cheese.

So when Straczynski gives us his update, it is no longer a boy who escaped from Wineville, nor is it even a boy whom Gordon was accused of murdering, as suggested earlier by Straczynski and Rasmussen. What Straczynski says now is that the boy had only been to Wineville. We all know that Gordon picked-up multiple youth and took them back to his house in Wineville and would molest them and drive them back to LA the folliwing morning and drop them off in their neighborhood.

It is quite probable that many boys never told their parents of their own molestation out of shame, embarrassment, fear, ridicule or any other number of reasons.

"There weren't a great deal of details given, because they were trying to respect the privacy of the family, but that much was established."

Now then, if we are to believe Ms. Rasmussen's story, this would mean that the Police and the Press decided that a boy is found 5 years later from the horrors of Wineville and may have details of Walter's whereabouts, is allowed to disapear into thin air with no story or questions asked "because they were trying to respect the privacy of the family"?????

Anyone with common sense knows this cannot possibly be true.

The only way that this story makes any sense, is if the boy was molested by Gordon, driven home, he didn't tell his parents until he grew up into a teen some 5 years after the execution of Gordon. The boy was not found, but rather, the boy told his parents some 5 years later about what had happened to him...........molestation at Wineville and his parents contact the Police, whom investigate and interview the boy. They establish that he was kidnapped and molested by Gordon and taken to Wineville and driven home the next morning, as Gordon typically did with his victims. As Gordon is dead now, what good does it to report that another boy has been identified as a victim of Gordon's molestation? It would only hurt the family and the boy, whom have already suffered enough from Gordon. It is in this instance, that the Police and the Press decide to respect the privacy of the family.

Certainly the Police and the Press would have to break the story had the boy escaped from the chicken-coops knowing that Walter had also possibly escaped. Were the Police and the Press to not report this story, or present it to their superiors, as a courtesy to the family in order to insulate the family from suffereing further embarrasment, that would be one of the greatest cover-ups of all time and would require massive amounts of people all willing to lie and risk their careers over some boy who was found..............I don't think so.

Here is the last comment on this preposterous part of the Rasmussen article.

Sanford Clark was a model citizen in Canada, living an exemplary life. He had a phone number and was publicly listed. The State of California contacted Sanford regarding his thoughts on whether or not his grandmother Sarah should be paroled.

Sanford was available to anyone who wanted to call him for any reason. Christine could have called him. The LA police could have called him regarding a boy who came forward speaking of an escape.

None of this is in the public record, nor recorded by Sanford, or the State of California, because none of this ever happened.

There was never a boy whom came forward five years after Northcott's execution, that Gordon Northcott was accused of killing.

There could have been a boy whom came forward 5 years after Gordon's execution that had been kidnapped and taken to Wineville for molestation, but that is a far cry from another murder victim.

IN CONCLUSION REGARDING THE RASMUSSEN STATEMENT THAT "5 YEARS AFTER NORTHCOTT'S EXECUTION, ONE OF THE OTHER BOYS HE WAS ACCUSED OF KILLING WAS FOUND ALIVE AND WELL", THIS IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FALSE.

Beaconmike (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Beaconmike (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cecilia Rasmussen article #2

Previously (Topic above this one) I discussed why the Cecilia Rasmussen article #1 is generally totally and completely false. Her #1 article is complete and full of mis-representations that the historical record does not support.

INCREDIBLY Ms. Rasmussen writes an article approximately 5 years later, (which I will post below) that completely contradicts almost everything she wrote in article #1, (that people constantly reference as the gold-standard of truth), when it comes to discussions of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Her article #2 proves my points of contradiction that I made in article #1. Generally in article #2, Ms. Rasmussen finally gets most of her facts correct regarding the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.

Below is the Rasmussen article #2, (which completely contradicts her article #1). At the end of the Rasmussen article #2, I will point out her assertions that do not agree with the Historical Record at all, but generally she gets it right in article #2, (five years later from her article #1). It is almost as if, 2 totally different people wrote these articles. It is difficult for me to believe that such a respected writer as Cecilia Rasmussen, could knowingly contradict herself with 2 articles about the same subject, written only 5 years apart. My attempts to contact Ms. Rasmussen to discuss these variations in her articles, remain unanswered by her.

---

<Article struck as WP:COPYVIO.>

---

It is critical to note that in article #2, Ms. Rasmussen points out that: "In the next few months, three more boys vanished: Walter Collins, 9, of Mount Washington disappeared in March on his way to the movies; two Pomona brothers, Nelson and Louis Winslow, 10 and 12, went missing in May while walking home from a model yacht club meeting."

Ms. Rasmussen reflects the truth about Wineville and the number of boys missing. It is here where the complete refutiation of her earlier article #1 occurs. In article #1, Rasmussen had indicated that upwards of 20 missing boys were attributed to Gordon Northcott. That statement of 20 missing boys, did not agree with any historical records on this matter. Here in article #2, Rasmussen agrees with the Historical Record.

Setting Rasmussen article #2 in order with the Historical Records:

(1) "In September, federal immigration authorities received a call from a Canadian woman. She said her nephew had kidnapped her son and was holding him at a Riverside County chicken ranch. When investigators arrived at the ranch in Wineville -- now known as Mira Loma -- they found Stanford Wesley Clark, 15, and his sister Jessie (who had alerted her mother to the situation)."

The historical record shows us that the Canadian woman whom contacted authorities (to the horrors at Wineville) was in fact, Sanford Clark's sister Jessie(and not his Mother). Jessie initiated contact to athorities after she fled Wineville and had returned to Canada. We also know that when authorities arrived at the ranch in Wineville, that they only found Sanford Clark...............they did not find Jessie, as she was already back in Canada.

(2) "Clark eventually admitted to participating in the murder of one of the Winslow brothers, saying Gordon Northcott had forced him."

The historical record shows us that Sanford Clark implicated himself from the very start, and he did not stall authorities at all in his confessions as to what happened at Wineville. Sanford Clark admits readily and willingly (to both authorities, and in testimony given at the sentencing hearing of Sarah Louise Northcott) that he participated in each of the 3 murders that took place at Wineville (against his will and forced by both Sarah Louise Northctt and Gordon Northcott): Walter Collins and the 2 Winslow brothers. Rasmussen is incorrect in her statement. Rasmussen's comment does not reflect the Historical record.

(3) "(Gordon)Northcott was charged with killing Walter, along with the Winslow brothers and the Mexican youth."

The historical record shows us that Gordon Northcott was never charged with the murder of Walter Collins, as Sarah Louise Northcott had already confessed to the murder of Walter Collins, and been sentenced. The State of California only chose to prosecute Gordon for the murders of the 'Headless Mexican and the 2 Winslow brothers'. (It is only my supposition that the state already had a conviction on the murder of Walter Collins and they did not wish to pour any energy into charging Gordon with the murder of Walter, as they already had someone convicted of that Murder.)

(4) "At times he (Gordon Northcott) hinted that there were more than four victims."

Just because somneone hints that there may be more than 4 victims, does not make it true. Rasmussen's comment is purely speculative and does not support the historical record as to how many children were abducted and murdered by Gordon Northcott. Please note that in the end, the State of California did the following: "After a 27-day trial and two hours' deliberation, jurors convicted Northcott of three slayings -- all but young Walter Collins." Here Rasmussen's comment does not yet reflect the Historical Record. Gordon Northcott was never charged with the murder of Walter Collins, as his mother had already been sentenced for the murder of Walter. Legally speaking, Gordon Northcott was only implicated in the murder of Walter Collins. Gordon Northcott was convicted of all of the murders he was charged with............the headless mexican and the 2 Winslow brothers. Sarah Louise Northcott was convicted in the murder of Walter Collins.

(5) "The teenager who first revealed the killings, Clark, was sentenced to the Whittier State School for Boys for his role in one murder."

This statement does not agree with the Historical Record. Sanford Clark was sentenced for his role in 3 murders, not one. He was sentenced for his admitted role in the murders of Walter Collins and the 2 Winslow brothers. Were it not for Sanford Clark's testimony in court regarding the details of these murders, no one would even know what had happened at Wineville. Sanford Clark implicated himself knowingly and willingly with no future knowledge of how the judicial system would view him. Sanford Clark had been forced to participate in these murders. For those who question this comment, please read up on the topic 'Stockholm Syndrome'. This will help you to better understand how the judicial system views these types of situations.

(6) "But six weeks after Northcott was hanged, a Hesperia trapper found the remains of a youth in the desert near the ranch. The body was male, from 12 to 15 years old, and was believed to be another Northcott victim. It was never identified."

This statement does not agree with the historical record. The notion that these remains were an additional Northcott murder victim does not bear true, in that the State of California concluded that there were only 3 murder victims from the Chicken-Ranch. It is the testimony of Sanford Clark that proves to us that there were only 3 murder victims in total from the Chicken-Ranch. There were no more boys to be accounted for. This is fact! The remains that the Hesperia trapper found would have been the remains of one of the 3 murder victims from Gordon. He and his mother, admittedly took the 3 partial bodies out to the desert one night and burned them. As the remains were never identified, one can only conclude that it was one of the original 3 victims that the Hesperia trapper found. There was no other victim from the chicken-ranch. There were only 3 boys ever murdered at the Chicken-Ranch.

---

For me, the Rasmussen article #2, completely refutes the statements that were made in her article #1, and her article #2, is simply creative writing designed to sell newspapers with much speculation that the Historical Record in this matter completely refutes. Anyone who posts on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders on Wiki, and cites either Rasmussen article #1 or #2 as being truthful and/or representative of the historical record, (their posts or comments) should be immediately struck from the Wiki page, as neither Rasmussen articles agree at all with the Historical records in this matter. Beaconmike (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I need to reach an editor regarding the recent edits by 76.121.120.70

We have someone out there whom is re-writing the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders with no truthful data or substantiation whatsoever. I have left a message on their talk page to provide specific sources for their re-writes with no success. We need this page to reflect the truth and not just the whims of someone whom is attempting to make up data to support the film Changeling. Those are 2 very different topics.

We need to edit and remove this writer and admonish them for not adhering to providing source information.

This person continues to re-edit the page every day or so and much of the original writing that has been in place for over a year now is being gutted by 76.121.120.70.

Specifically they are inserting information regarding 'The boy who came forward' with absolutely no factual source information. It does not exist, because it never happened in the first place.

IF this person has actual source information, then that would turn all of the historical data on its ear, including the Riverside Historical Society and 2 authors whom have totally debunked the David Clay portion of the film Changeling.

I would do the edits myself, but I prefer that an editor step in and we correctly re-insert the previous existing data as 76.121.120.70 does not have any actual factual data to back up his/her suppositions. Beaconmike (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wineville Chicken Coop Murders page reverted

Thanks to the administrators who reverted the section 'The Boy Who Came Forward' to its original historically accurate version by removing over 30 edits inserted by another editor who did not provide any historically relevant sources and refused to respond to repeated requests to do so. Beaconmike (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If the IP starts up again with this nonsense you might want to go to WP:Request page protection and ask that this article be given temporary semi-protection. I would classify the IP's changes as vandalism, a deliberate hoax. Don't waste any more time debating or debunking this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The boy who came forward

This is my response to the administrator's citation in the first sentence of this section:

"There was a boy who, along with his parents, spoke to authorities five years after the execution of Gordon Northcott.[who?][citation needed][original research?]".

Who?: We do not know the name of the boy whom came forward. In the film Changeling, he is depicted as a boy named David Clay, a fictional character.

Citation Needed: There is no citation available for the boy whom came forward. The boy was a molestation victim of Gordon Northcott's and the only document that existed would have been a police report regarding the families visit to authorities. The family allegedly wished that there be no coverage or mention of their names regarding that their son had been molested by Gordon Northcott. People have scoured the archival records of the Southern California papers searching for this exact story, with no results. From the Historical record, we do know that there was a boy whom did come forward (explained below). What we know about the boy who came forward was also that he was never held captive in the Chicken-Coops.

Original Research?: No. Please read below. There are many dots to connect as to how the story of a boy coming forward even began, but here is how it is seen by many and how it arose in the first place.

Quoting from the book by James Jeffrey Paul: 'Nothing is Strange with You' on page 252 of the paperback edition: "On 29 November 1935 he (George Northcott, father of executed son Gordon Northcott, husband of imprisoned wife, Sarah Louise Northcott) wrote to the authorities: (in part)..............In the last year, one of the alleged victims has turned up........." George Northcott was living in Pennsylvania at the time. It is speculated that George Northcott, whom was attempting to gain parole for his wife in prison was alerted to 'an alleged victim at Wineville speaks to authorities' by his attorney in Los Angeles. As there was no newspaper coverage of this story, it is presumed that the attorney gained this information from a police report filed by the family regarding the molestation of their son.

It is this sentence that gives rise to the possibility that a boy whom was allegedly murdered, was in fact alive.

In the film Changeling, the screenwriter (for dramatic purposes) writes that this boy whom came forward had escaped from the Wineville Chicken Coops, and in the film, that the boy who came forward then claims that Walter Collins and other boys may have escaped from the chicken coops as well.

This escape event takes place in the film only, and is strictly a fictionalized version that never took place in real life and the Historical record proves that.

The historical record proved that Walter Collins and the 2 Winslow brothers (the only boys ever held in the Chicken Coops), were murdered. Those 3 boys never escaped, nor were they ever held together at the same times in the Chicken Coops. Each of the boys murdered at Wineville, were held in the Chicken Coops at separate times. It was strictly in the film that boys escaped, and the film does not agree in any way possible with the historical record regarding the boy who came forward.

The historical record shows us that at the outset of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders investigation, there were many missing boys in the greater Southern California Basin area. The police had one key witness to everything that happened at Wineville, Sanford Clark. The LAPD showed picture after picture of missing youths to Sanford. Of these missing boy pictures, Sanford Clark identified 3 boys whom had been murdered at Wineville. Walter Collins and the 2 Winslow Brothers.

The Press at that time, was writing sensationalistic stories on the front pages that as many as 20 boys whom were missing, were all victims of the Wineville Murders.

In the end, Sanford Clark testified that only 3 boys were ever held captive in the Chicken Coops at Wineville, and that those boys had all been murdered. The State of California prosecuted and executed Gordon Northcott for those murders, and imprisoned his mother, as an accomplice in the murders for 12 years. No boys ever escaped from the Chicken-Coops.

We do know from George Northcott's letter to authorities (7 years after his son was executed), that (by then) an unidentified young man with his parents presents himself to authorities. We know from the the LAPD investigation and Sanford Clark's testimony during the trial, that this young man was never held captive in the Chicken Coops, nor identified in the missing youth pictures presented by Police as was testified by Sanford Clark.

It is therefore concluded that a boy (young man) whom turns up 7 years later and goes with his parents to the authorities, is a molestation victim of Gordon's. Gordon Northcott molested many young boys, then taking them back to their home in the night. It would be nighttime when Gordon would arrive with these youths. Sanford Clark testified that he slept outside much of the time and could not identify any of the (many child) molestation victims that Gordon Northcott brought to Wineville and then took home that same night.

A young boy gets home after being molested and does not tell his parents where he has been. 7 years later after Gordon's execution, the boy, now a young adult, tells his parents what happened that terrible night at Wineville. The young man recognized Gordon Northcott as his perpetrator from the front page coverage of Gordon's execution. The parents and the (now) young man go to authorities to speak of the molestation incident, and that it was Gordon. As justice has been served, with Gordon already executed, there is nothing to be gained or changed, other than a sad footnote to the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders of yet another molestation victim.

There is absolutely not a single shred of evidence that exists with the Riverside Historical Society that indicates that there was ever a boy who turned up 7 years later and spoke of Walter Collins escape from the Chicken Coops at Wineville.

Walter was murdered and the State of California executed a man for the murder.

That is how George Northcott comes to put in his letter that "one of the alleged victims has turned up". It is one of the initial alleged victims as identified by the Press, but never confirmed by the State's key witness, Sanford Clark, nor the ever confirmed by the LAPD during their final report on the investigation of the murders at Wineville.

That is how we go from a letter from Gordon Northcott indicating that a 'victim' has now turned up, to a boy who comes forward speaking of Walters escape from the Chicken Coops. Hollywood License taken for dramatic effect in the film Changeling, has convinced many that multiple boys escaped from the Chicken Coops one night and that one of them came forward to speak of Walter Collin's escape as well. The film was fantasy and had nothing to do in real life with the true fate of Walter Collins..........murdered. Beaconmike (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

General style of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fairly confusing article

The article is pretty hard to follow. Some issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The finding

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

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

Notice to user 76.21.120.70 and your edit

To user 76.21.120.70. You continue to vandalize the talk page Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. This is your second warning on this page alone in 2 years.

I am going to make my case as to why your edit regarding 16 or 20 unconfirmed murders is not part of the historical record for George Northcott, convicted murderer of 3 boys during the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.

Your post accusing George Northcott of 16-20 unconfirmed murders was never; proven in a court of law, never brought up in the trial against George Northcott, and the Police investigatory unit of Los Angeles was accused of corruption (at that time), for attempting to pin every missing boy in Los Angeles county and surrouding counties on George Northcott.

In the Gold-Standard book by James Jeffrey Paul 'Nothing is Strange with You', this notion that George Northcott was implicated and responsible for 16-20 missing boys is covered and dismissed by the historical record. Not by the author, but by the historical record.

The Winevile Chicken Coop murders is a page about historical facts. It is not a page about wild speculation that may have been generated by the film The Changeling which is a fictional film depicting some of the events that took place at Wineville.

I will leave this discussion with a quote from George Northcott (convicted murderer) whom from his own cell resoundingly and angrily shouted at reporters outside of his cell when they were asking him about the murder of every missing boy in the area..............George said: "Well you might as well pin every missing boy in the area on me, if this is the kind of justice I am going to get."

Again, the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders Wiki page is about facts, not speculation and 16-20 missing boys has never been a part of the historical record whatsoever. If we are going to say 16-20 missing boys, why not just say hundreds of missing boys that George Northcott is reported to have murdered? If we are just going to make stuff up, then why not make some really big lies that have nothing to do with his actual trial, the actual evidence that he was convicted of, nor the actual facts of the matter.

If you would like to present your reasons as to why we should begin to include your speculatory posts on the page, please do so here and leave a message in my inbox. Beaconboy (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Passage of unclear meaning

In the section The boy who came forward, it states:

In 1935, five years after Northcott's execution, a boy his parents spoke to authorities....Authorities initially speculated that this same boy had been a murder victim at Wineville...

The authorities thought the boy who came forward with his parents was a murder victim??? Can someone fix this? Did the editor who wrote this mean to say that the authorities initially speculated that this same boy that they previously thought been a murder victim at Wineville? I can't verify this with the source, since it's not an online source, but if possible, could someone with access to the source double-check this and fix the passage? Nightscream (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, you would like some additional clarification on the time line of the sentence?

"In 1935, five years after Northcott's execution a boy (and) his parents spoke to authorities. Authorities initially speculated (ssome 6 years earlier) that this same boy had been a murder victim at Wineville".

I understand your concern; that the sentence structure creates confusion over the time line.

Let me re-write this and get your take on the new sentence structure.

"In 1935, five years after Northcott's execution, a boy and his parents spoke to authorities. During the initial Police investigation, (some 6 years earlier), authorities had speculated that the missing boy might have been one of the murder victims."

Does that restructuring of the sentence answer your question?

Footnoting remains the same as originally identified.

Beaconboy (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response, but no, I'm sorry, but it does not make any sense to me. Here are my questions:

• A boy and his parents spoke to authorities about what?
• Authorities speculated that what missing boy was one of the murder victims? What boy are they referring to? The boy who came forward? I'm not seeing the connection with the boy who came forward? Who is he? What did he and his parents tell authorities?

Also, you don't need a heading or section for each message. Headings/sections are to organize entire discussion threads. Just indenting your message one space to the right is suffiicient, and is the accepted practice on Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2015

1) a boy and his parents spoke to authorities 5 years later that their son had been adbucted and molested by Gordon Northcott. The boy had come home after the incident, but owing to the nature of the incident, did not tell his parents about what had happened. After Gordon Northcott had been executed, the boy went to his parents and exclaimed that he too had been a molestation victim. The family reported the incident to the Police a year after Gordon's execution. There is only mention that a boy came forward, as stated and quoted from the gold standard historical reference book by James Jefferey Paul. That is all that is known. I had some correspondence with the author regarding 'the boy whom came forward'. The author stated that in his research, that the family did not want any mention of this in the newspapers. The family did not want (or their son) to be embarrased. The family was a prominent family in Los Angeles and had the financial and/or political clout to see to it that the Police and the newspapers did not get this story out in public. As Northcott was executed and the public was wanting to move on, the story was not covered by the papers.

2) Initially when the (above mentioned) boy went missing, for a day, his parents reported him missing to the Police. At that time, the police were working on the Gordon Northcott case. Police initially speculated that the boy may have been one of Gordon Northcott's victims. At that time, about every missing boy in the Los Angeles area that had been, or was reported missing, was being blamed on Gordon Northcott. The Police initially assumed that the missing boy had been abducted by Northcott and may have been one of his murdered or molested victims. The following day when the boy comes home and is questioned by his parents, he does not tell them about the molestation incident, so they simply notify police that their son has come home and had stayed over night at a friends house. End of police interest in this boy and his being missing. 5 years later, the boy tells his parents the truth of his abduction, having seen Gordon Northcott's face over the newspapers. The boy realizes that Gordon is now deceased, and he tells the truth of the story to his parents, whom then notify the police that the boy had been one of Gordon's abduction victims, but certainly not a murder victim.

3) There are no names attached to this 'missing boy'. It was kept quiet and away from the newspapers. Gordon was executed and so no need to publicly shame the molestation victim.

4) Let's continue the dialogue if this doesn't answer your question, but there is no more public information available on this part of the story. This is all that is known. I have spoken at length with the Riverside Historical Society (keeper of all historical records regarding the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders), and they completly debunk the notion of a boy whom was held captive and escaped from the chicken-coops (as depicted in the film). Historically speaking and legally speaking from the testimony of Sanford Clark, there were only 3 boys ever held captive in the chicken-coops; Walter Collins and the 2 winslow brothers, whom all 3 were murdered. There was never an escape from the chicken-coops as depicted in the film. Beaconboy (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Beaconboy, I'm not sure why you (and Dan below--Jesus, 1,600 words? Really?) touched upon things that don't pertain to my request for clarification, but my only concern was the meaning of a sentence that appears to have a problem with its subject/predicate structure. I do not argue for naming any molestation victims, and I haven't seen the film, so I don't know about what "escape" you're talking about.

My issue was this: When you write "a boy and his parents spoke to authorities 5 years later that their son...", this is what I'm talking about. If "their" refers to the subject first established in the beginning of the sentence, then that means you're referring to "a boy and his parents". But a boy and his parents cannot have a son. I'm gathering that the "son" in question is the boy, correct? But if that's the case, it makes no sense to say "their son", since the word "their" must refer to the boy and his parents. You can't use a possessive pronoun to refer to only part of the established subject. I'm thinking that what was meant was "A couple came forward with their son to explain to authorities that they had previously reported their son missing to the police, but that he eventually came home."

In addition, the passage in the article states, "authorities had speculated that this missing boy might have been been a murder victim at Wineville", without stating what missing boy is being referred to. I'll edit the article to clarify this. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nightscream thank you for reviewing the section Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders#The_boy_who_came_forward.

I originally created the Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders to avoid having the Wikipedia article on Changeling (film) becoming an article more about the case, than about the film. The section about the boy coming forward has been problematic since it was first introduced into to the Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders article.

After multiple readings of “Nothing is Strange with You: The Life and Crimes of Gordon Stewart Northcott”, “The Road Out of Hell: Sanford Clark and the True Story of the Wineville Murders” and reprints and electronic versions of original Los Angeles Times stories and photos on Walter Collins' disappearance, it became abundantly clear that Gordon Stewart Northcott was a narcissist and sociopath.

While he was in prison, he would repeatedly claim that he killed twenty or more boys, and then recant his claim to gain attention. He would also falsely describe and/or draw maps where he buried the remains of the three boys he killed to the police leading them on multiple goose chases in an attempt to manipulate the police.

Sanford Wesley Clark, testified that prior to killing the three boys Gordon Stewart Northcott would pick up boys, sexually and physically abuse them and let them go. Some of the Los Angeles Times news stories speculated that a few of these boys were too ashamed to go home to their parents and remained missing for years. In addition, the Los Angeles Police publicly stated that a large number of missing boys were due Gordon Stewart Northcott kidnapping them. Much of the speculation by the press and the police has never been substantiated or discredited.

Cecilia Rasmussen was a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. From the early 1980s through February 2005, she wrote a column about Los Angeles history called “L.A. Scene / The City Then and Now". Her book, “L. A. Unconventional: The Men & Women Who Did L. A. Their Way”, is one of the books included in the further reading section. She wrote two columns about the events related to the Walter Collins kidnapping. In one of these columns, she mentions a boy who claimed to have been kidnapped by Gordon Stewart Northcott. In his testimony, Sanford Wesley Clark never mentioned any boys beyond the anonymous Mexican teenage boy that Northcott beheaded, Walter Collins, Lewis Winslow and Nelson Winslow.

Three sentences in this article form the basis for the section on the boy who came forward:

Rasmussen, Cecilia (1999-02-07). "The Boy Who Vanished–and His Impostor". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-10-06.

• Five years after Northcott's execution, one of the other boys he was accused of killing was found alive and well.
• This tiny bit of news gave Collins the hope she needed to go on searching for the rest of her life.
• If, somehow, Walter is alive today, he is 80 years old.

I have not been able to find any information online that substantiates what Ms. Rasmussen wrote in these three sentences from the article. I’ve exchanged emails with both James Jeffrey Paul (author of Nothing is Strange with You: The Life and Crimes of Gordon Stewart Northcott) and Anthony Flacco (author of The Road Out of Hell: Sanford Clark and the True Story of the Wineville Murders). Neither could provide information to support what Ms. Rasmussen wrote. However, there may be information from the California Child Welfare agency and other California historical archives that the screen writer for Changeling (film), J. Michael Straczynski, discovered during his research for the film. There is a strong probability that the boy’s family was able to keep the case out of the press, because they were well known. I believe that much of this investigation constitutes original research, which makes it off limits for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. I know J. Michael Straczynski and James Jeffrey Paul personally. Not only does this put me in an awkward situation, so I have to be very careful to remain totally objective regarding the case. This also poses the probability of conflict of interest. As a result, I’ve generally avoided editing the article unless there is no possibility of conflict of interest in the edit.

When Larry Harnisch took over Cecilia Rasmussen’s column in February 2005, the column was renamed “The Daily Mirror”. Larry Harnisch wrote about the case daily from Mid-October 2008 through February 2009. The column has become an independent blog at the website http://ladailymirror.com/.

One problem with the Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders article is that it mashes together multiple convoluted and bizarre true stories:

• Gordon Stewart Northcott had a long history of molesting boys.
• Gordon Stewart Northcott kidnapped, tortured, and murdered an anonymous Mexican teenage boy, Walter Collins, Lewis Winslow and Nelson Winslow. He was committed these crimes in a remote area rural California that made discovery of his activities unlikely.
• Gordon Stewart Northcott was clearly a sociopath who was more interested in inflicting addition psychological pain on his victims than in mounting a viable defense.
• Both Gordon Stewart Northcott and is mother, Sarah Louise Northcott, were pathological liars. They would frequently change their stories on what occurred. Gordon enjoyed watching the police follow the false leads and maps the he provided.
• Gordon Stewart Northcott sexually and psychologically abused Sanford Wesley Clark for close to two years. Gordon and Sarah forced Sanford to participate in the murders of three of the children. Sanford Wesley Clark was rehabilitated to become a productive citizen with the help of an enlightened juvenile correction judge and his wife June McInnes Clark. Sanford’s adopted son, Jerry Clark, and crime novelist Anthony Flacco wrote about Sanford’s life in “The Road Out of Hell: Sanford Clark and the True Story of the Wineville Murders.”
• Walter Collins, Sr. was a petty criminal, who served two prison terms for multiple counts of armed robbery. He was in prison when
• Walter Collins, Jr. was kidnapped and murdered. Walter Collins, Sr. died in prison.
• Christine Ida Dunne Collins was devastated when Walter Collins, Jr. was kidnapped. She never accepted that Walter Collins was murdered.
• Arthur J. Hutchins, Jr. continually ran away from home after his mother died. He did not get along with his adopted mother. He pretended to be Walter Collins, Jr. so he could get a free trip to California and meet his boyhood idol, Tom Mix. Arthur J. Hutchins, Jr. was able to pose as Walter Collins, Jr. because he feigned memory loss due to the trauma of being kidnapped. He rarely spoke and would listen careful so he could answer the questions the way people would expect him to answer them. Christine Collins also inadvertently provided Arthur with information in her letters to him that allowed him to impersonate Walter.
• The Los Angeles Police wanted the case to go away. They received significant public pressure to solve the case, which had become a nationwide embarrassment. They were delighted when they found “Walter” in Dekalb, Ilinois. The police arrange for a very public reunion between Christine Collins and “Walter”.
• Christine Collins immediately recognized Arthur J. Hutchins, Jr. as an imposter, but was forced take him home to prove she was a good mother. After Christine Collins was able to provide concreted evidence that Arthur J. Hutchins, Jr. was not Walter, Captain J.J. Jones had her to the psychiatric ward at Los Angeles County Hospital under a "Code 12" internment.
• Dr. Gustav A. Briegleb was a Presbyterian minister and pioneer radio evangelist. Briegleb was a colleague and friend of Methodist minister R.P. Shuler, who founded the radio ministry. Briegleb and Shuler were community activists and partners in challenging the vice and crime of the city and the corruption of the Los Angeles Police Department and city officials. He and Shuler intervened on Christine Collins behalf after she was committed to the psychiatric ward. However, Christine Collins was released because Arthur J. Hutchins, Jr. admitted to Captain J.J. Jones that he was not Walter Collins. (Note: Rev. R.P. Shuler and Rev. Robert Shuler of the Chrystal Cathedral are two different people.)
• Sammy "S.S." Hahn, at the request of Rev. Briegleb, helped Christine Collins pro bono. He helped get her release from the psychiatric ward. With Hahn’s help won a wrongful imprisonment suit against Captain J.J. Jones. Unfortunately, Captain J.J. Jones never paid the settlement. Sammy "S.S." Hahn was a famous defense lawyer who defended Aimee Semple McPherson and murderess Louise Peete, one of only three women to be executed in California. He committed suicide on June 26, 1957.
• The Los Angeles Times generally favored the Los Angeles Police over Christine Collins in stories. This is partly because her husband was a convicted criminal, but there are indications that she was discriminated against because she was one eighth African American. Christine Collins was extremely outspoken at a time when women were expect to defer to male authorities. To avoid the intrusion of the press and public scrutiny, Christine made a habit of using various aliases. There is very little information about her after her original suit against Captain J.J. Jones. The only public records are a newspaper account of Christine Collins is from 1941, when she attempted to collect a $15,562 judgment against Captain Jones, a voting record from 1954 and her listing in the social security death index. Dan Dassow (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper article from 2011 reporting that Gordon Northcott killed 20 boys

I have removed the section under Judicial Case that was recently added around 4/29. The addition stated that in 2011, (the New York something or another newspaper) reported that Gordon Northcott had killed 20 boys. The historical record; (from the Riverside Historical Society) and the Gold Standard Book by James Jeffrey Paul; Nothing is Strange with You, discuss the court case that the county of Los Angeles brought against Gordon Northcott. Their was some speculation that Gordon may have killed up to 20 boys, but that was dismissed due to a complete lack of any evidence in that matter. It was not even introduced at trial. In addition, this possibility of Gordon Northcott possibly killing 20 boys is brought up and addressed earlier in this Wiki Article. This topic does not need to be re-introduced back into the article as fact, when it is a false accusation with no historical proof of accuracy. Gordon Northcott was charged wiht the killing of 3 boys only. NOT 20. I want this page to remain as historically accurate as possible, and not an article that takes on tones of the National Enquirer, (which is gossip and speculation). The New York newspaper publishing this article, did not do their fact checks with the Riverside Historical Society. Had they bothered to fact check they would have never printed that Gordon Northcott murdered 20 boys. It is simply not true. Beaconboy (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss what it is you think I am vandalizing on this page

Um, someone out there is accusing me of vandalizing this page. I am happy to discuss this with them, if they will respond here on the talk page and state their case. They have made a few attempts to edit the page, but as best I can tell, they leave their sentence(s) incomplete.

For instance, it seems to me that they are trying to suggest that Gordon Northcott did not "sexually abuse" Sanford Clark or Gordon's victims,(by apparently trying to remove this sentence from the page). This is all part of the testimony and court record of the State of California against Gordon Northcott. I am simply quoting the facts of the case.

If the poster has some new information that disputes those court records, the poster should certainly provide that information on this talk page. The California Historical Society will be more than eager to learn of this new factual information that the poster can provide regarding the court case against Gordon Northcott.

I am not vandalizing the page at all. I am simply making certain that the page reflects what the court records and the legal case against Gordon Northcott reflect.

As I said, if someone wishes to notify the poster, they can put forth their concerns here and I am more than happy to retract any of my prior posts, if some factual evidence can be put forth to dispute the court record.

The National Enquirer and sensationalistic newspapers are not considered to be of enough journalistic credibility / integrity to change the legal record that is available for anyone to generally read (in the book by James Jeffrey Paul; Nothing is strange with you).

Until then, I will continue to re-edit any changes to the Wineville page that this poster is making (with incomplete sentences and no discussion on the talk page or facts) to support their edit.

Beaconboy (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)