Talk:William Heirens

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

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers Mid‑importance

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

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

In need of lots of work

I've started working on this article today, making loads of spelling, heading and grammar edits. There was a lengthy essay on the Black Dahlia killings and someone's thoughts on possible connections, but it was in a hidden text within the article. The whole thing read as if it were someone's term paper pasted into the article, or perhaps part of the article's original form. I removed a lot of hidden notes that were just responses to statements in the article, for example, in the section titled "An alternative suspect." There is at least one citation problem and I suspect the rest need checking. The article remains full of weasel words and reads as fairly biased to me and is on my "work to do list." Hopefully, others will jump in. Wildhartlivie 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this citation problem? Most of the citations that are used are links to legit websites including crime library and a link to the Northwestern University Law April 2002 Clemency Petition which cites court records. I included links to the Time Magazine achieves like this for example. I also included an pro presecution link namely The Monster That Terrorized Chicago". What is the problem? Did anyone actually check the links in the article and read what was there? As for bias, most of the material out in the media questions the verdict. Do you have links that stand by the verdict reached? Please include them. Anything that counters the evidence of innocence, for example is there anything out there that says that it is Heiren's handwriting on the ransom note and the wall? I would like to include them. I have no interest of Heirens being guilty or not but most of the material seems to put the verdict in doubt. When you have that an article is going to appear biased. I or anyone else will gladly include other pro prosecution facts if they are available.Hunter2005 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation problem is at #39: Warden, Rob, Center on Wrongful Convictions, William Heirens: Background from Northwestern University which is a dead link. Also, the way they are stacked could stand some work, some of the urls cited should probably be archived at webcite or internet archive so they don't all end up getting lost. It would be nice if there were alternate references besides the crime library, mostly because they aren't in the least bit immune to error. I've found glaring errors on articles there in the past. Not that I'm saying this one does, but it wouldn't be out of the ordinary. It needs more research done than I have time for right now, but it's on my list of things to look into.

I do wonder why that extensive work-up about the Black Dahlia was hidden inside the body of the article. Does anyone have a clue on that? Wildhartlivie 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the dead link and replaced it with an active one. As regarding the crime library site and me thinking it was immune to error I don't. Any website we cite can have flaws in it. How can we really know without doing independent research which of course is banned? You do it by having more than one source and most of the claims made by the Crime Library article cite heavily Dolores Kennedy's book. That in turn has been independently verified by the Northwestern University Law Petition:

"The facts in this section of this Petition have been independently verified, but originally disclosed by Dolores Kennedy in her Book William Heirens. His Day in Court (Bonus Books, 1991)."[1]

As for the Black Dahlia section being hidden it's because I hadn't quite finished it. The same with other hidden sections. I had intended to have a subsection on alleged defense attorney misconduct as part or the "Claims of Innocence" section. The Black Dahlia section is justified by an assertion that the same killer responsible for the murder of Elizabeth Short in Los Angeles maybe responsible for the death of Suzanne Degnan in Chicago by way of how similar the two bodies were bisected at a certain exact point trough the spinal column that required a surgeon's skill. The police in the cities that the murders took place in both the Short and Degnan cases independently determined that whoever had bisected their respective victims had to have a surgeon's skill (in the Chicago case at least that of a butcher) in separating the body sections at that same exact point in the spinal cord. Heirens was not known to have such skill while a suspect in the Short case at least went to medical school. It is part of the alternative suspect theory and the source was an A&E documentary series Most Evil. That is the relevance, the similarities of the Dahlia murder in Los Angeles in at least one case in the Chicago Lipstick Murders. I am not purporting it as fact that the two are indeed related but as a reported theory. One clarification: In my previous reply I asked if there was anything out there that says it is Heiren's handwriting on the note and on the wall as an example that could support the case against Heirens. I meant anything that determined forensically countering the findings that says that it isn't Heirens's writing countering the recent findings and not merely saying that it is. Hunter2005 09:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'd suggest that you might want to add a sandbox page to your userpage and move the Dahlia stuff there to work on it, rather than hiding it inside the article. It would make it a lot easier to work on and less confusing and disruptive to other editors who may want to work on the page. Wildhartlivie 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Data

I have read many books about the case of William Heirens. In fact, I have my copy of Crimes and Punishment: A Pictorial Encyclopedia of Aberrant Behavior Volume 16 sitting next to me as I type this. On p. 84-85 it discusses some of the evidence in the three murders.

The focus of this article seems to be on the third case of murder, to the detriment of the first two.

According to Crimes and Punishment, the bloody fingerprint left at the sight of the second murder was not the only one. Several fingerprints of Heinren's were found at the crime scenes, particularly the second. I believe I have read the same in others, but will not state it since I do not have those references available at the moment.

The article does not address, in any way, William Heirens' underwear collection, or that many of his burglaries were to obtain woman's undergarments. It is difficult to understand the man if all factors are not considered, even though the underwear found in his home was discovered illegally. Opinion: The first two victims may well have surprised Heinrens in his activities and paid the price of his panicked mind.

In the case of the first two murders, the blood was washed off the bodies. This is not mentioned, even though it is a fact of the case.

I agree that it is unlikely that Heinrens killed Suzanne Degnan. Not simply because of the evidence, but because it would have been a massive change in his criminal pattern, and one that occurred without any interim or escalating stages.

However much the author may wish otherwise, the way the article is written comes across as both weasel-worded and biased in favor of William Heirens. The way it reads does not present a balanced view of all the known facts, and leans far too heavily on the third case.

Crimes and Punishment: An Encyclopedia of Abberant Behavior Edited by Jackson Morley Advising Editorial Board: H. Montgomery Hyde, Colin Wilson, C. H. Rolph, J. H. H. Gaute, Nigel Moreland copyright BPC Publishing Limited And Credit Services Inc. 1974 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Condorcandi (talk • contribs) 07:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eye witness age mismatch

Josephine Ross text here:

police unable to identify or locate him. Not so much information here

Frances Brown text here:

nightclerkwitness:35–40 years old and weighing approximately 140 pounds had got off the elevator
year 45 minus birth date 28= 17 not age 35-40

Suzanne Degnan text here:

He described the man as around 5'9" tall, 170 lbs and 35 years of age and wearing a light coloured fedora and dark coat
year 46 minus birth date 28= 18 not 35 years old

The age difference is too big and agreed thre's not enough information here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.151.35.218 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The estimated ages are those given by the witnesses to police. There is no requirement that they be adjusted to match Heirens age. Wayne (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV Unbalanced

This writer(s) of this article seem totally covinced of his innocence. While he may be innocent, we don't know so a more balanced article should be attempted by someone on the other side 173.165.104.27 (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)MaryVera[reply]

I cant see anything not supported by reliable sources, you need to point out what is unbalanced specifically. It is not an indication of imbalance for an article to lean to innocence. We can only use what the sources give us and if that makes the article lean in a particular direction then so be it. Wayne (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not an indication of balance, because you can't see anything wrong with it. There is. I just removed a sentence that claimed that "many remain convinced of his innocence" which in and of itself is a weasel-way of putting things since there is no definition of "many". Are we talking about more or less than half the population? There's no way to quantify this assessment. Ultimately, it turned out that the source didn't even use the phrase, but only spoke of "those that remain convinced of his innocence" - not even a slight indication regarding the quantity of this group of people. Apart from all of that, it's non-information. There are always doubters. Every murderer will have people vouching for their innocence years after their conviction. That is no information, but mere noise in favor to paint a nicer picture of a convicted killer that wasn't even paroled when he was a frail old man.92.73.150.160 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Russell Thomas "Confession"

The article makes a fairly radical claim that an alternate suspect, Richard Russell Thomas, actually confessed to the Degnan murder before Heirens was convicted. I found that pretty shocking, so I followed the citation, but I couldn't find any mention of this confession in the linked Tucson Weekly article.

I don't want to change the information if it's accurate, but wanted to bring it to someone's attention for further research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.61.79 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on William Heirens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations of autopsy reports

It is not possible that an autopsy report could show "that she had been alive when taken from her home, murdered at a second location that was never identified, and then taken to the laundry room".Royalcourtier (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on William Heirens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always hate to say this...

...when someone/some group of people have put so much work in, but the article is grossly overdetailed to the point of being unreadable. Somewhere in here is a readable, balanced article struggling to get out. E Eng 18:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three years later: this article still needs a machete taken to it. E Eng 12:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Article!

Great article, but did he really murder only 3 people? Can you add some updates of him from now? That would help my file a lot! My friends and I started researching Public Police Cases so I would be thankful if you added some updates from now. - Kupz Benedict