Talk:Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions about the article's subject. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article. |
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] The Article Itself is Absurdly Biased. It Hardly Requires a Person to be Right-Leaning to Want Fair Coverage of a Crime
The article itself is so absurdly biased as to be totally worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.147.246 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could you be specific as to what you want changed? --Haemo (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can be specific... Although maybe Ill just change it. How is it that only "radicals" were outraged by a seeming lack of coverage of this case? The opening paragraph indicates that only some lunatic fringe felt that this case had been swept under the rug. I can tell you that there was a lot of anger that this case was seemingly going completely uncovered and not just by "radicals". The fact that seemingly no black groups cared is sad, but that doesnt make the folks who did care "white supremecists"
This is one of the worst crimes to ever occur and not a peep by the national media. When I first read about it online, I thought it was an urban legend due to lack of sources covering it as to make it look legitimate. Rocky 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Living persons tag: Redux
I asked this a long time ago when this page first started... what's the deal with putting a "Living Persons" tag on this article? The article isn't about "Living Persons" and it's kinda sick to suggest otherwise... TheUncleBob (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- All of the suspects are still alive, hence it is about living people. --Haemo (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Except that this is an article about the "Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newson" and not an article about "The Suspects in the Murder of...". This article doesn't need a BLP tag on it any more than the Wal*Mart article (people who work for Wal*Mart and are mentioned in the article are still alive!) or the article on Uranus (people who study the planet and are mentioned in the article are still alive!). It's a slap in the face to those impacted to have a tag saying this article is about living persons when it's about people who have been murdered. TheUncleBob (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If I may quote the BLP tag:
- This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.
This article had a lot of poorly sourced and ultimately incorrect information about the actions of the suspects in it at one point. It's been quite contentious as well, since many people thought the information should be included until proven false. That's not the way things work here. Obviously, the article is titled Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, but we have to make sure that we keep any possibly libelous material about the suspects out of the article. The tag isn't there as an insult or to show disrespect to the victims in any way, it is there to protect the encyclopedia and to make people aware about what can and cannot be put into the article. Again, this is in no way meant to demean or disrespect the victims, but contributors must be made aware of the policy. AniMate 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would just point out that the tag never says this article is about living people, anyways. --Haemo (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even if the article came out and said the suspects did the crime, it would not be libelous. Libel means that A. The statement is untrue, and can be proven to be untrue B. The person making the statement knew it was untrue. This would qualify for neither. We all know what is really going on here, so let's stop beating around the bush. The addition of the incorrect tag was made as one more effort of the politically correct apologist liberals to both confound the defenders of the truth in this case and also to coddle the murderers as much as possible. Any tiny little way they can achieve either one of these goals is something they will pursue. The fact that a few of us have taken objection to the incorrect tag virtually ensures that it will be an issue that will never go away. These liberal apologists are nothing if not petty. Katherinewelles (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The tag is not "incorrect" — all of the accused are still alive, and have not been found guilty of a crime as yet. An individual who is accused of a crime, but not yet found guilty in a court of law is just as entitled to protection from false information, or information which is stated with false certainty (as you do). If "innocent until proven guilty" is "politically correct liberal apologism" then it would appear that modern civilization is founded on the basis of politically correct liberal apologism. --Haemo (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even if the article came out and said the suspects did the crime, it would not be libelous. Libel means that A. The statement is untrue, and can be proven to be untrue B. The person making the statement knew it was untrue. This would qualify for neither. We all know what is really going on here, so let's stop beating around the bush. The addition of the incorrect tag was made as one more effort of the politically correct apologist liberals to both confound the defenders of the truth in this case and also to coddle the murderers as much as possible. Any tiny little way they can achieve either one of these goals is something they will pursue. The fact that a few of us have taken objection to the incorrect tag virtually ensures that it will be an issue that will never go away. These liberal apologists are nothing if not petty. Katherinewelles (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would just point out that the tag never says this article is about living people, anyways. --Haemo (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I don’t know if I should keep laughing or if it’s really sad that people have such a wrong view of the law. Consider the statement X has sex with animals. X (or anyone) cannot prove that she never had sex with an (nonhuman) animal and you can’t prove that I don’t believe X never had sex with animals – so there is no libel or slander. Right. Stay in school kids. You guys and most bloggers can’t even do libel, and you expect to do a murder case. By the way, that idiot Boyd, who helped his friends get out of town, but was accused of rape by the people he helped, and thousands of idiot bloggers who believe the worst about a black man, even when the it’s a black murderer making up jail-house stories, has a good libel case against all you idiot blogers who said he participated in a gang-rape and murder (assuming he has proven to the police that he was not at the murder scene). That is why newspapers put ALLEGED in. Undog (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd just like to remind both Katherinewelles and Undog that they need to assume good faith. There's really no need for anyone on this talk page to insult anyone else. If you're looking for a healthy debate about racism or liberalism, take it to another site, this is about writing an article. I know there are other pages that could use some attention too, and I'm honestly not sure why this has become your chosen battleground. Try poking around somewhere else for awhile. AniMate 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I said "even if..." I wasn't making a case that wikipedia should do this; I was simply saying even if they did, it still wouldn't be libel legally speaking (which it wouldn't) as to a few statements by Animate: A: "I'm honestly not sure why this has become your chosen battleground." K: Why don't you check the history and see how many times I have posted anything to the article or this discussion page. Rarely is the answer. A: "Try poking around somewhere else for awhile." K: Well that sure is friendly. Thanks for helping to raise the level of discourse. hey everyone, if you are posting something that Animate doesn't want to hear then it is really best that you just go elsewhere. seriously, he would appreciate it. thanks. no seriously, please do go elsewhere. the first amendment does not cover things that Animate doesn't want to hear. Incidentally, Animate, you will probably get your wish (that wish being I go elsewhere) but I assure you that it won't be because you asked. If and when I do return I assure you that I will not tailor my commentary to your aversion to controversy or controversial statements. Katherinewelles (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, try to assume good faith. The comment clearly wasn't only directed towards you. I see that you have made many other contributions to other areas, but I felt a reminder that we should try to work in a collegial and friendly manner was needed. If posting to this talk page upsets you so much that you feel you have to hurl insults, maybe you should go poke around somewhere else. I have no aversion to controversy or controversial statements, but I do have an aversion to making this or any talk page a battleground. If that's what you're here for, maybe you shouldn't be here. Wikipedia, flawed as it is, is first and foremost about spreading information, not about fighting and hurling accusations. I'm sorry if I offended you, and hope from here on in you'll take my comments in the friendly way they were given. AniMate 08:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Because anyone saying that a rape happened with 100% certainty – as this Wikipedia article does - is an idiot who has no idea of how many rapes turn out to not be rapes or fall into the middle ground of we will never know. For example, Kobe Bryant may or may not have committed rape, but anyone claiming with 100% certainty that a rape did or did not happen is an idiot. All of you, Animate, Hameo and KW have to stop listening to people who believe what you do and be exposed to more general ideas – where the vast majority of people think Wikipedia is a toy written by amateurs/idiots and Rush is an entertainer. And if you want to call someone a rapist without being sued for libel, you should frame it as a theory/opinion (I think he did it because..) or quote a reliable source (Prosecutors claim…)
But I digress and am close to running onto a rampage – Animate’s objection. If any of you were updated by Google News, the death penalty is being sought against one of the defendants. I’ll leave it for someone else to update. One of the aggravating circumstances is “torture” which the dumb racists are going to have a field day with, but in TN an most states “Under the fifth aggravating circumstance, a defendant's acts must be so heinous, atrocious, and cruel as to torture the victim beyond that which is necessary to inflict death.57 The Tennessee Supreme Court, in State v. Blanton,68 found that the defendant tortured the victim where "the victim remained conscious and sustained severe physical or mental pain and suffering between the infliction of the wounds and the time of death."69 The court noted that, under this aggravating circumstance, the defendant's intent is irrelevant. “
In other words if you are too dumb to kill your victem efficitently and quickly you get the agrevating circumstance of torture, while if you are an efficent killer you don’t – it MOST OFTEN has nothing necessarily to do with intention.
My own personal opinion is that the police have really screwed up this case by charging everyone with everything they could have – and if they don’t have any medical evidence of rape (not one excon accusing the others to save own skin) they have screwed up this case, with uninentinal help from white racits. – But Wikipedia or any serious publication should not be a place for opinons – unless clearly identified as opinions/comentary – either mine or idiot racist opinions. Undog (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah ok. You're right. No crime was committed. The victims didnt even exist really. They're fabrications. Or actually, since they're white, they can't really even *be* victims right? No... The suspects are the real victims. Victims of a racist society and racist cops. They should actually be given medals rather than dragged into court and yet they face the death penalty. MORE racism. As for those kids, IF they existed, they probably killed each other. And no one was raped. There was no body stuffed into a garbage can. The whole thing is just another fabrication by the evil white society to make black people look bad. Happy now?
- Comment : Undog (talk), I have been involved with this article almost from when the first words were written. I have bitten my tongue, or I should say my typing fingers, on more than one occasion, on both sides of the issue. However, with regards to your commentary, you have inflamed discussions, on more than one occasion, for no other reason than to inflate your own ego with nothing more than hot air Shoessss | Chat 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- This article does not say a rape occured — it says "According to the grand jury presentment" there was a rape. Your objection is groundless. --Haemo (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Undog, do you edit any articles besides this one? Graham Wellington (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How can we be sure they were murdered?
Some of the continued silliness with this article seems to be the uncertainty as to whether or not a double rape occurred on the victims. The grand jury indicts on the facts of the case, i.e., that the couple were murdered and that the couple were raped. The word "alleged" is used to describe the actions (or non-actions) of the defendants because their guilt isn't proven; it is not an established fact. But the case against the defendants has nothing to do with whether crimes (murder and rape) were committed, just whether these defendants indeed were the ones who committed the crimes.
If after all this time, when every news organ in civilization that has reported on this crime has no doubt that the couple were murdered and raped (among other crimes), if the fact that rapes were committed against both these individuals is STILL somehow in doubt here, then we really can't be sure that they were murdered, either.
It's best to reword the sentence to read that it's the grand jury and not WP editors who are saying that the couple was murdered AND raped. After all, if we doubt that rape was committed, who are we to say they were murdered? For all we know, it was suicide!
I think this edit makes much more sense if we're still doubting that the couple was raped. (For the record, I can't find any other WP article involving a continuing murder case with sexual assault where the sexual assault aspect is in question.)Simplemines (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Added another "according to the grand jury" in a latter graph referring to Newsom being raped to avoid the inference that the rape and murder were somehow established fact.Simplemines (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with this. Once the court case concludes, we can probably remove this wording per undue weight. --Haemo (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eric Boyd has been found guilty!
Is anyone following his trial?? LOTS of new and horrendous details given to the jury, including that Channon Christian wasn't dead when she was stuff in that garbage can. She was suffocated to death.
Channon's father has broken his silence because one of the killers' girlfriends said in court that Channon was forced to shoot and kill Chris Newsom.
LOTS of links on this. Google "Channon Christian" and click on news. You'll be reading for days.
(And I'm still wondering how all this got past the usual suspects.) Simplemines (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- The only links I can find are brief and don't go into detail — have any better ones? --Haemo (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Detail:
"Late Monday afternoon and early Tuesday morning, jurors heard graphic testimony from Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan about the deaths of Newsom and Christian.
She told jurors that Newsom was repeatedly raped and then blindfolded, gagged, arms and feet bound and his head covered. Barefoot, he was either led or dragged outside the house to a set of nearby railroad tracks, where a gun was placed to the back of his head and fired. He was shot twice more, once in the neck and once in the back. His body was then set afire, she said.
Christian’s death would come only after hours of sexual torture, Mileusnic-Polchan testified."
....>
"Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was not only raped but savaged with “an object,” the doctor testified. She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed with the same solution—all while Christian was alive, the forensic expert said."
"She was then “hog-tied,” with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small white trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets, Mileusnic-Polchan testified."
"Christian died slowly, suffocating, the medical examiner said."
“My conclusion was she actually died in the trash can,” Mileusnic-Polchan testified."
Link:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/apr/16/jury-seeks-clarity-how-involved-boyd-had-be/
Historicalhonesty (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. Sorry, let's see what we can incorporate. I'll get around to this weekend. --Haemo (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "A purported lack of coverage by the mainstream media"
Is whoever added that line to the article unclear on the meaning of the word purported? Because if you google their names, you'll find a grand total of 38 articles, all from local Tennessee sites. [1]. If that's not a lack of coverage, I don't know what would qualify. Kar98 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's purported because that's what people who state it believe. Other people disagree, and the article reflects that disagreement. Purported means "commonly put forward" or "reputed or believed", which is exactly what the case is. Some people believe, others do not. Also, I would note that there are far more than 38 news stories about this case, as our own articles uses 31 sources. --Haemo (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Added new information
I went ahead and added in the information that came out in the wake of Eric Boyd's conviction. This includes the trauma Christian suffered to her genitals and Gary Christian's change of heart in regards to this being a hate crime. AniMate 01:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I think it is time to start changing all of the "according to the grand jury" statements. We now have evidence presented by an expert attesting to most (if not all) of the contested statements. AniMate 03:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Too bad Newsome didn't have a beretta 92 loaded up with 9mm+P ammo. He could have eliminated all of the vermin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.101.209 (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
