Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture of suspect

How about adding the composite sketch of the suspect to this article? Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How about the police releasing a still of the man in which he's actually visible? It's on record that they have a considerable amount of footage and audio from the incident, but have only released two distant, grainy stills and a muffled, one-second audio clip, because they don't want to "compromise" the case. It's a weird one. But yeah, adding the composite drawing would be an improvement. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:C32:5F1:297C:D897 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Video and audio of suspect

A free video with audio can be found here Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a free video, do not upload it to Commons. Its caption is "Investigators have released an updated voice recording and video of the suspect not previously released that was extracted from slain 14-year-old Liberty German's cell phone," so the copyright is probably owned by Liberty German's family. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The video is from the FBI. It’s on the FBI’s website. Why can’t it be used? Paige Matheson (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Aren't FBI files in public domain? Azuresky Voight (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Content produced solely by the FBI or some other federal employee in the course of their duties. As said above, this appears to have been primarily created by Liberty German. The FBI's enhancements and other modifications will be in the public domain but their work is still a derivative work of an original video not made by them. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Kevin Sellers" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kevin Sellers and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#Kevin Sellers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Charges

The charges for this article include "sex toy" and "falsifying public records". I'm not sure of any evidence for the latter and the former is nonsensical so I believe this should be changed. Trex467 (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Error or oversight

The article says: Kline set up the fake social media accounts, in which he used photos of an unknown male model, to catfish potential underage victims. He is not "unknown". They (RS's) have identified him (by name) as a police officer, from Alaska (or California?). He even gave a few interviews, stating that he was horrified to learn of his connection to the murder case. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Officer Vincent Kowalski. Source: [1]. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Will add. wizzito | say hello! 03:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death?

Why is a cause of death still being kept secret five years after the murders? Yodabyte (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM. Some1 (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the police / authorities. I assume that they would say -- or, indeed, have said -- that they want to preserve the integrity of the investigation. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Name of suspect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

An RfC was started; findings and arguments should be presented in the RfC to keep the future participants informed, and to prevent a split discussion. References to arguments made here can be made in the RfC, and comments may be quoted, as needed, so there is no use in letting this section possibly attract more participation. Thanks everyone for taking part in this lead-up to the process which may finally show what the consensus is.—Alalch E. 21:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Please do not add the name of the recently arrested suspect to the article or talk page. See WP:BLPCRIME and the BLP Noticeboard. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Aren't criminal suspects normally named? e.g. the shooter in the 2022 Buffalo shooting hasn't been convicted but he is still named wizzito | say hello! 00:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the crime along with the depth of coverage about the suspect, especially if the coverage is ongoing in national media outlets. A mass murder like 2022 Buffalo shooting is not a fair comparison. In this instance, there has not been any in-depth coverage about the suspect so I agree they should not be named. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that he has been covered enough that he's worth mentioning. However, if this is not consensus, I won't lose sleep over it. BOTTO _(T•C) 18:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I too think there has been significant coverage to warrant mentioning his name. This case may not be a mass shooting but has been covered extensively via podcasts, tv, etc. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that the reason we have BLPCRIME is precisely for such cases – when media report a suspect's name and some editors may be tempted to include it. Actually, the degree of media coverage does not override our policies, which stem from legal considerations rather than from WP:V. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, Ok however this is the first time I believe I have ever seen this followed. Nikolas Cruz, the Stoneman Douglas shooter, his name was added the day of the shooting. I am not going to fight this though. Just another inconsistent decision on Wiki. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This is why WP:BLPCRIME is not a hard and fast rule. Stoneman Douglas was a very high profile event and there was never any doubt who the shooter is (he confessed immediately). This is much lower profile. I could well be that the accused in this case is actually innocent, so we should be more careful about naming the suspect. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty BLPCRIME never states anything about the "high or low profile" of the case. Here are two more cases that are more low profile than Stoneman Douglas where the accused's name was immediately added on the day of creation (and they didn't confess at all or immediately): Killing of Walter Scott & Charleston church shooting. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but it is one factor to consider when deciding whether to name a suspect.

"For individuals who are not public figures ... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

A high-profile crime where the perpetrator has immediately confessed is a no-brainer. In a lower profile case where there are still only allegations against a low-profile person, we should usually avoid naming the suspect unless there is a compelling reason to name. I see no compelling reason in this case. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not want to go back and forth on this. If there is no consensus I am fine with leaving it out. I believe this case in more high profile than the Killing of Walter Scott, but I digress. By the way he is not a suspect anymore as he has been arrested he is the accused. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The case's profile doesn't matter. In many legislations, publicly associating individuals with a crime that they have not been convicted for is illegal and can be a ground for a lawsuit. Wikipedia understands and respects that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not quite. Saying or implying that someone is guilty of a crime they have not been convicted of could have legal consequences. The names of people who have been charged with crimes are usually in the public domain (as is the case here). What WP:BLPCRIME addresses is whether Wikipedia should name suspects (and someone remains a suspect even when charged). Each case is different, and what we are discussing here is whether adding the name is appropriate in this case. It may well be, but the starting point (based on the presumption of innocence) should be not to add it unless there are compelling reasons to. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS so there is no requirement for us to include everything WP:RS report. Indeed, they operate under different parameters. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Food for thought: [2] [3] [4] [5]

Re. this case, we should just follow the policy IMO. The rationale is in the above links. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the suspect should be named. From what I have seen, it seems to be rather common to state when a suspect is arrested, their name, and the pending charges against them well before the end of their trial.

There are several examples that I can think of where a suspect was named before being convicted or pleading guilty, including Pike County shootings which listed the family suspected of the killings years before they were officially convicted, or even arrested for that matter.

Death of Victoria Martens is another that is an ongoing case, with no conviction which also lists the suspects names. The same goes for Killing of Cannon Hinnant, with a suspect named and no conviction. Murder of Marrisa Shen has a suspect named who is still awaiting trial.

With this case, I can understand wanting to avoid sensationalism or anything similar, and avoiding wrongfully accusing someone. Respectfully, I think that stating that a suspect has been arrested and charged is a completely different thing than saying 'John Doe was a person of interest because he had a blue jacket', and grasping at straws to tie things into this case and potentially damaging a person's reputation. Stating that there was an arrest and someone is being charged with murder isn't implying guilt on their part. And for an ongoing case, with nationwide coverage, I think this would fall under a 'high-profile crime', with her recording the person suspected of murdering her. And in this exact instance, with the suspect in question that keeps having his name removed, I would like to also add the fact that in the recently released document, by his own admission he placed himself at the scene of the crime in an almost identical outfit as the person captured on video [6]https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23321462-allen-affidavit

I think this is a compelling reason to include his name. Awshort (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Court documents are not WP:RS. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF. There need to be compelling reasons why he should be named in this case. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The main reason BLP exists is to prevent the defamation of a person that could be innocent. In terms of this case, stating someone was arrested and charged is not a defamatory statement. To qualify as a defamatory statement in the United States, which is what we are using as the guideline to judge this by since it's for the english wikipedia, it would have to meet the following guidelines:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.. [7]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

The suspect was arrested, and formally charged. That is fact, and is not a false statement. If you look at something like Richard Jewell, he was accused of the media of being a criminal, without charges ever being brought against him by a law enforcement agency or even being arrested.

The counter argument that has been made against naming was

"The case's profile doesn't matter. In many legislations, publicly associating individuals with a crime that they have not been convicted for is illegal and can be a ground for a lawsuit. Wikipedia understands and respects that."

— kashmīrī

While this argument holds weight in some countries, in the US, simply stating someone was arrested and charged is generally not meant in a malicious manner. It isn't illegal to state that someone was arrested for something and charged in connection with it, nor is it grounds for a lawsuit for the reasons listed above. However, with something like Kyle Rittenhouse, the defamatory statements that caused him to look into legal actions against the media was the fact that people called him a murderer and a white supremacist, even after he was acquitted.

I agree with this quote -

"We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service."

— Lard Almighty, Special:MobileDiff/965831945

I think stating the following would be a way to meet in the middle, since it does not imply guilt and allows for the suspects claim of innocence. I suggest we change what is currently the last line

On October 31, 2022, Indiana State Police announced that the suspect had been charged with two counts of murder in the case. His trial is scheduled to begin in March 2023

to the following

On October 31, 2022, Indiana State Police announced that the suspect, suspect name, had been charged with two counts of murder in the case. He has pleaded not guilty, with the start date of his trial scheduled to begin in March 2023.

Awshort (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Quote from your AP link above that you suggest we follow policy on: "This policy of not identifying suspects by name applies to minor crime briefs. We will continue to identify suspects by name in stories on significant crimes, such as murder, that would merit ongoing news coverage. In these cases, naming a suspect may be important for public safety reasons. These guidelines also do not include stories about active searches for fugitives." Awshort (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. Per WP policy, the name should be included. --216.24.45.9 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The suspect has been identified in Rolling Stone, People Magazine, and other widely-distributed media, with a bullet from his gun found in between the bodies of the two girls. I think if the police as well as major magazines have no problem revealing the suspect’s name and putting him on trial at this point, it will not tarnish Wikipedia to follow suit. LovelyLillith (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPCRIME. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to naming people who are not in the public eye who have been accused of a crime, no matter that they are named in RS. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

We need to reach consensus here before adding the name. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPCrime doesn't state he cannot be named, but to use caution. Wikipedia does not censor, unless it is a defamatory statement. At this point, there haven't been any counter arguments about why the name cannot be added, with several reasons being given for it's inclusion. Is that not consensus? Awshort (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

And the reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it.

I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, it doesn't involve paedophilia at all, it involves murder.

Nothing that has came from Wikipedia:RS has stated there were any sexual elements to the murders, and other than a prior person of interest (who I would like like to point out is currently not named on the page) trying to solicit inappropriate images of one of the victims through social media the night prior to their murder, there has not been any mention of anything of a sexual nature in this case to date. Also, Wikipedia does not censor. While I can partially understand wanting to protect someone with a similar name, the suspect has been arrested and in custody since October, including being moved for his own protection, so the chances of someone with a similar name being attacked for something that hasn't been mentioned in a single reliable source are slim to none.

Regarding the prior reverts, they have all pointed to the talk page as directed to by your hat note, until a consensus can be reached, including an edit by me within the last week for exactly that reason when the suspect was named. However, no one has presented a counter argument on why the name cannot be here other than to look at Wikipedia:BLPCRIME. Awshort (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long a person has been in pre-trial detention. Until and unless they are declared guilty by a court, they are innocent, plain and simple. In many jurisdictions, it's illegal to identify such people – their faces on any photo are pixelated or blurred while names are substituted with initials. The US with all its media reporting is rather lax with respect to the rights of people accused of a crime, but Wikipedia strives to follow more stringent standards. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty

I disagree. We, as editors, should stay neutral and give whatever information is available, especially on a high profile murder case, as long as it doesn't imply that said person is guilty. Following along with the core content policy on remaining neutral

Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

As you stated previously - "Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service." I don't see how including the name would cause problems or be anything other than neutral.

@Kashmiri

While I understand what you are saying regarding other jurisdictions, on the English Wikipedia the guidelines page states the following - This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages of the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia goes by the laws of the US when it comes to the legality of including material. No one is stating the suspect is innocent or guilty, but as stated, Blpcrime exists in order to prevent defamatory statements being made about someone who could potentially be innocent, and prevent legal problems that go along with such statements by the media according to US defamation laws. Different countries and different cultures have their own laws in respect to privacy and rights, so it's an apples to oranges comparison. BLPCrime does not say that a suspect cannot be named at all, but does state that caution should be used if the name is to be included before a conviction has been secured.

Awshort (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, it is literally almost impossible to put current references into the article without the arrested suspect’s name being mentioned in the titles, as well as the fact that there is international attention on this case (The Sun and Independent.co.uk are two examples) using his name. We are not stating he is guilty, but what we ARE doing at this point is going to extremes in contorting ourselves to omit other pertinent information in order to hide his name, which makes (as stated by another) one of the most highly-read sites in the world look ridiculous now. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's leave it at this, as it's pretty obvious that there's no consensus on adding the current suspect's name to the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive346#Suspect's_name_in_the_URL_of_sources/references Some1 (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive343#Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Reopened

I previously closed this discussion as a consensus for naming the suspect. Based on the arguments presented here and at noticeboards, I did not find a policy-based reason to withhold the name. Simply naming WP:BLPCRIME as a policy was WP:DISCARDed, since the policy is not an absolute prohibition on naming suspects. Arguments based on WP:N or WP:EVENT were also inapplicable, since those are policies about page creation rather than content. Several editors noted widespread reporting of the arrest that was reliable, sustained, and geographically broad. Some editors believed that withholding the name detracted from the article and impeded efforts to build it. The potential for harm related to BLP issues, particularly WP:AVOIDVICTIM was discussed, but it was not proposed that such a situation exists in this case. It was affirmed that Wikipedia should not use the arrest to imply guilt or impute a motive to the suspect, but that is irrelevant to whether or not they are named.

Given several editors' dissatisfaction with the close, the BLP nature of the issue, and a rough consensus at the administrator noticeboard, I have withdrawn my closure. This will give interested parties time to revise and reinforce policy-based arguments. There have been suggestions to hold an RfC, which I would endorse doing. Sennalen (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion related to WP:EVENT was not about page creation, but specifically discussed content, e.g. how local and/or sensationalized coverage does not appear to support inclusion of the name of a suspect who is not a public figure per WP:BLPCRIME (e.g. [8], [9] at BLPN). There also does not appear to be a demonstration of how exclusion of the name detracts or otherwise impedes efforts to build the article. The privacy considerations in BLP policy are significant, and the seriousness with which BLP policy encourages us to not include the name of someone charged with a crime who is not a public figure seems to imply that a serious encyclopedic need for inclusion should be demonstrated. Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Sensationalized coverage should not be relied upon, but non-sensationalized coverage was noted.

As a personal opinion, not derived from prior discussion, someone arrested for a high-profile crime ipso facto becomes a high-profile person. I believe the proper spirit of WP:BLPCRIME is to prevent coatracking where neither the crime nor the person is independently noteworthy. Sennalen (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Beccanyr here, as might be easily deduced. I think the chance of harm from inclusion of the suspect's name is very small, but the improvement to the article to be had by naming him is nonexistent. Yes, the name exists out there and is easily found. Without the name, people would be forced to go find it in the sources. With the name, people would be forced to go to the sources to learn anything about the suspect. As such, at this stage, it strikes me better to err on the side of caution. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen scrolling through, I only see one source pertaining to this article that was presented, back on December 2nd by @Awshort. However, that was an affidavit which is primary so not useful. Let me know if I missed any others though. (Side note: Ashort I encourage you be more concise with your statements, please.) S0091 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@S0091, I'm currently away from the house and writing from my phone, but could you elaborate on the statements comment, please?

I've made a lot of statements as of late, and if I have an example I have a starting point to work from :)

Awshort (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You have added over a third of the text here out of 20 participants. Not horrible or anything, just something to consider (see WP:WALLOFTEXT). S0091 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

At least 12 national or international news sources were noted at BLP/N. Sennalen (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This one: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive346#Suspect's_name_in_the_URL_of_sources/references? First, I did look at discussions that occurred elsewhere, only here. Also, I am not sure if it should be considered because the discussion was largely about the name being in URLs rather than about having the name in the prose. S0091 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Beccaynr and nothing Ive seen argued overcomes BLPCRIME. Also specifically charged of a high profile crime ipso facto becomes high-profile person is just an argument to scrap BLPCRIME. The more serious the crime, the more high profile it is, the more that BLPCRIME should apply to an oversize non-notable subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest someone sets up a proper RFC so this can be done with one way or the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the topic of the suspect's name keeps coming up, an RfC is a good idea. I'll get one started. Some1 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German#RfC:_Suspect's_name Some1 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not find a policy-based reason to withhold the name? The way I see it, it's not the closer's role to find reasons for one of the proposed actions. The closer's role is to check whether there exists a policy-based WP:CONSENSUS among the participating editors; to evaluate all the key arguments of both sides vis-a-vis policies; and to close the discussion either as a consensus or as a no consensus. Yours, instead, was a WP:SUPERVOTE. Glad that you have decided to reopen this. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.