Talk:Albert Fish/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contradictions in number of needles

The caption under the X-ray of Fish's pelvis states that 'over a dozen' needles were found there. The page that appears when clicking on the photo mentions '27', and the article text '29'. I suggest that whatever figure is correct is used in all three cases for consistency and credibility. 85.94.246.241 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Monkey/ Pee-Wees?

What are they exactly? As morbid it may be, you might want to provide an explanation for readers not familiar with such slang. 88.114.75.92 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)I guess "monkey and pee-wees" means the boy's penis and testicles.

Oh, CONGRATULATIONS

I spent ages reformatting this page so that it would flow better. Then some idiot went and changed it again, but still using most of my work - yet still managed to make it as disorganised as before. THIS PAGE IS NOT CRONOLOGICAL, NOR DOES IT FLOW PROPERLY

Plus, Fish has been proven to be the Brooklyn vampire. And whatever fool thinks there were 5 victims of the vampire is sorely mistaken - there were only four. Stop changing what is correct and good for the article.

I shall make my changes in due time. --Naylor182 12:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal

I don't know anything about the Brooklyn Vampire, I haven't seen any references in the newspaper archives.

There is at least one other person that was killing children in New York City during the same years, Peter Kudzinowski and he was a suspect in the Gaffney murder. Fish confessed to three murders and was convicted for one. He said he stabbed two others starting in 1910. I chuj, japierdole co z tego,że on miał taki zjebany ryj !

King had at least three other people who were suspects in the Budd murder and two were arrested, and one stood trial and was found innocent.

References to primary and secondary sources are much more accurate than tertiary sources. Crime library has the best written tertiary source that doesn't make sensationalist claims, the New York Times and the Washington Post coverage is the most dispassionate, and never mentions the Brooklyn Vampire at all. They use the "gray man" and "wusteria murder" and "wusteria werewolf". I have downloaded 16 articles on the murders and the trial. King had many theories that turned out to be completely wrong, and any theories should be attributed to their sources, and should NOT be presented as fact. Fish also told many stories, some backed by facts and by witnesses, others that didn't fit the forensic evidence. Please always cite sources and attribute info to that source whenever you can.

• Avoid: Fish raped over 100 children.
• Better: Fish told his psychiatrist that he had raped over 100 children.

• Avoid: Fish was the Brooklyn Vampire.
• Better: Detective King believed Fish to be responsible for the killings of several children in New York City that were never solved.

Each time the phrase is put in context so the reader can judge the value and reliability of the sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Stayed v. Staid

The spelling of the word stayed is, in fact, "staid" in the original letter. After my second correction of this I feel it must be stated explicitly: "staid" is not in error; it is correct insofar as it recreates the original text more accurately. User:Sir Isaac

Misc

There is a story, may be urban legend, that the first attempt at electrocution shorted the machine and burnt the fuses before accomplishing the task, because of all the needles, nails and razor blades inside his body. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 09:18, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

172.133.71.172 is a vandal is his edit OK ? I don't know enough about Fish to see which version is right. Ericd 21:26, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nice catch. I initiated the page, you got it right. Thanks. vudu 23:54, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

During 1898, he was married to a woman nine years his junior and fathered six children before his wife ran off with another man.

This seems like an unbelievably active year!! GreatWhiteNortherner 01:13, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jinjo. Man, that is funny.

Is he related to the Sec. of State Hamilton Fish? AMFriedman 11:33 AM, 23 April 2006 (CST)

Hannibal Lecter

For future reference, Albert Fish was not the inspiration for Hannibal Lecter.

Here is an exercept from CrimeLibrary.com refering to Harris' inspiration "...that Harris once told a librarian in his home town, Cleveland, Mississippi, that Lecter was inspired by a murderer named William Coyne, who had escaped from prison in 1934 and gone on a rampage in Cleveland that included acts of murder and cannibalism. Coyne’s exploits were the stuff of local legend when Harris was growing up and might have planted the seed for Lecter in the author’s mind."

There, now stop changing it.

Anyway, my favorite is Andrei Chickatilo.... iskrena

Inspiration for Lecter

About the inspiration for the Lecter character from Demme's film--do we have a documented quote from either Harris (the author of the novel) or Demme? This talk about some librarian talking to Demme is nothing more than hearsay.

This article notes that there are a lot of real life serial killers that may be the inspiration for the character: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/lecter/2.html?sect=3

Fried Fish

OK, Cab88, you're right, it doesn't belong in the article. I just find it hard to avoid an obvious "punning situation". But I'm working on it. As a consolation, I'm posting it here, for the possible bemusement of all.  :) Wahkeenah 23:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Fried Fish.

Got some French Fries to go with that?

User_Talk:Michael_Reiter

What do we really know about Fish?

From my superficial knowledge of the case, it would seem that Fish was a masochist who abducted and murdered a number of children. He also claimed to have eaten them, and probably claimed to have killed a larger number and tortured more still. The body of Grace Budd as recovered, but which other disappearences were linked to him by physical evidence? A number of witnesses in child disappearences, or attempted abductions, identified him, which ones? Do we definately know he killed 15 children? Do we definately know he was a cannibal? Any answers gratefully received. Rich Farmbrough 21:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've quickly re-read the CrimeLibrary linked article, and fixed up a few things in our article which differ (6 children not 5, Edward budd advertised, not Fish.) I've removed some of the claims that don't seem substantiated, many of the rest are founded on Fish's testimony alone. However we don't mention Billy Gaffney of any of the other victims, nor the strange trial. Having said that, someone with acess to source material could improve this artcile tremendously. Rich Farmbrough 11:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been putting in material from the New York Times coverage and info on the Budds from the 1920 Census. There is a lot of apocryphal stories about Fish. I also think he exaggerated his own image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Capt. John Davis"

How much, if any, of this story is confirmed truth? --Creases 21:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I have removed the disclaimer at the top of the page, in line with the Wikipedia guidelines; see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. I presume the critical part of the article is the letter, so I'd suggest that it be moved to Wikisource. This would not only make the article less graphic, but also more compact and encyclopedic. GregorB 23:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The Letter

I'm not a registered user, and so I feel aprehensive about taking down the letter. But it should be considered as it is uncited. It also arouses my suspicions by using language and vocabulary not common to the 30s (for example, "ass", "fuck", "tho", "could of" (instead of "could have")). Was there indeed a famine in China? What do we know for certain about this case? Should we request expert attention?.

In reply to the above comment on the letter: There is nothing new about the words "ass," "fuck," "tho" or "could of." (Especially "fuck.")

That sort of language was common for the time, you just usually see it cleaned up in a lot of sources. I've also seen the text of this letter in several sources and those words are in there. As stated in the original article, there were several phonetic misspellings and those have also been recreated. --Gmuir 03:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

---

someone check the timeline its not chronologic

The letter is authentic and correct in the use of the words 'fuck', 'ass', and 'tho'. http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/fish/gracie_1.html

Someone, probably an anonymous vandal, has added a few lines at the end (Too bad. Hugs and Kisses, Albert) that are not accurate. I'm removing them. A.V.

??????

Fish said that he was told by god to kill, 

and that god still had more work for him to do. What do u think that might of been? Was he really hearing voices?

or was he simply insane?

______

Someone removed a particularly offensive line near the end of the letter and didn't bother to even post about it. I'm not really sure why someone who is that easily offended would be reading an article like this closely enough to see that, anyway. In any case, the line is back in, and so it now matches the linked source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.204.82 (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the line was removed. It is the second to last sentence in the letter that keeps being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.204.82 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of One Thing-

Of One Thing We Can All Be Sure; The Life Of Albert Hamilton Fish Was One Of Evil, and the Darkness, Pain and Sorrow He Brought To The Lives Of His Victims.

It Was Ended Appropriately Enough An The Electric Chair At the Sing-Sing Prison In New York... Like What Many In His Position Tend To Deserve Richly...

Michael 00:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Though a convinced atheist, I am still inclined to respond amen, brother to the above comment. When I see unrepentant cannibal-murderers like Issei Sagawa parade the television and media as free men, act like some Hollywood celebrity, and take pride in their crimes, I can only think of how much more civilised it would have been of society to put such life-forms to death, as was Albert Fish.

On another note, take a look at Sagawa's wikipedia entry talk page for some compelling arguments on the removal of lurid descriptions of cannibalism from wikipedia. How is posting Albert Fish's description of cannibalising a little girl any different to detailing acts of pedophilia on the relevant wp entry? In my opinion, both kinds of lurid narration are sick and have no place in an encyclopedic entry. 212.251.123.212 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it describes the act and how he went about it... two things that are encyclopdic. If one is offened by such, one should not read it. Typhoid Orchid 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Is the spelling tag reffering to the letter section? If so, that might have been the way he spelled it, and shouldn't we leave it as such, then? --Nqnpipnr17:06, June 27, 2006

Reason for fact tag

This statement "Most of his victims came from poor black families who were not likely to be able to do much about his actions." sounds like some wiki-editors opinion. So I added a fact tag. I'll leave it in for a while, then revert it, if no one can find the source to quote. Wjhonson 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the book Deranged ( written with the help of a man who knew Albert ), many of his victims came from poor families of all races.

If you could quote that passage in the article and cite the book that would be great. Thanks. Wjhonson 06:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Date

Are you sure Fish's father was born in 1795? That would have made him 75 years old when he fathered Albert Fish! I realize this is possible, just seems as though it could be an error. ExRat 07:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Freaky isnt it! I added the image from the 1870 census that gave me the data. He died in 1875 so I cant confirm with a later census. I will look for him in the 1860 census. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1860 census shows the family listed as "Fisher": Randall Fisher (born Maine, age 60, thus born 1799-1800), Ellen R. Fisher (born Ireland, age 25, Walter Fisher (born Pa., age 1) and Ruby J. Wilson (born N.Y., age 8). (Randall Fisher household, 1860 U.S. census, ward 2, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, page 2, dwelling 12, family 13; National Archives microfilm publication M653, roll 1152; Ancestry.com, <www.ancestry.com>, image 2, accessed 20 July 2007). Mapjc 13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed till confirmed

"Over the course of his criminal career, he murdered more than 23 children[citation needed] (some of whom he claimed to have eaten) and tortured others across the United States. It is believed that he may have killed adults as well."

How about the 'boogeyman' remark? Is there a source for that? 24.131.12.228 06:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following from Legacy for lack of evidence:
*Tori Amos' song "Cloud On My Tongue", from her 1994 album Under The Pink, makes a number of references to Fish ("if i ate her"/"I made up my mind to eat her"; "kiss the violets as they're waking up"/"She picked wildflowers"; "you can go now"/"You said Yes she could go"; "someone's knocking on my kitchen door"/"I told her to remain outside"; "circles and circles"; "all the girls here are freezing cold"). Lusanaherandraton 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially as I can't even find lines about "picked wildflowers" or "remain outside." I'm not sure any of that relates that unambiguously anyway. (I'm reading The Space Merchants at present and I have several Tori Amos CDs. I'd not heard of Fish before his mention in the Space Merchants, possibly that reference could go in Legacy)--T. Anthony 18:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Concern

The image Albertfish.jpg at the top of this article is labeled on its own page as being in the public domain because it was "first published in the United States prior to January 1, 1923." This is a patent impossibility if it was indeed taken "around the time of his last arrest" (presumably 1935) as its description claims. Lusanaherandraton 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

boogeyman

"The term boogeyman was at the time in reference to him." I don't see any references for this in any of the contemporary coverage in the New York Times except where a boy said the "boogeyman" took Gaffney.

More removed for sourcing or for weasel words

He is said to have consumed not only the flesh of his victims but also their urine, blood, and excrement. He attributed these tendencies to the abuse he suffered in childhood. He also claimed God sent him on "missions" to kill. His murders often involved slow torture. He would tie children up and whip them with a belt cut in half with nails sticking through to tenderize the flesh for cooking. Fish called his weapons "implements of hell."

A Daily News reporter who covered the trial wrote that Fish's "watery eyes gleamed at the thought of being burned by a heat more intense than the flames with which he often seared his flesh to gratify his lust," though others thought that Fish did not want to die. It is believed by some that he spoke of the prospect of electrocution as the "supreme thrill" and even helped the executioners fasten the straps that held his body in place.

His last words are said to have been "I don't know why I'm here". It was reported that the first jolt of electricity did not kill him, and that a second jolt was needed. A few wrote, facetiously, that the twenty-nine needles Fish had inserted into his body over the years, including his scrotal area, had caused a short circuit, causing him to remark, "Is that all you've got?" However, this is generally considered to be apocryphal, as guards insist that the first jolt did kill him and that all executed prisoners receive a second jolt as a precaution.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Other crimes

"However, King was not allowed to bring the murders up as evidence in the trial because the District Attorney wanted Fish to be found sane, and given the death sentence, and too many murders may have swayed the jury the other way. The modus operandi of the vampire was to lure little girls into a basement, flog them, then garrote them with a rope. The murders of the 'Brookyn vampire' (and thus Fish) were:"

I am not a lawyer but with "King was not allowed to bring the murders up as evidence in the trial because the District Attorney wanted Fish to be found sane, and given the death sentence" I don't think hearsay evidence and speculation can be brought up in court to prejudice a jury. Fish was never formally charged with the crimes, even if they never went to trial, if there was strong evidence, they would have formally charged him. Suspicions by an investigator can't be brought up in court.

"The modus operandi of the vampire was to lure little girls into a basement, flog them, then garrote them with a rope." Gaffney was killed in a garbage dump, and Francis X. McDonnell was found strangled in the woods with his own suspenders. Neither were in basements. Two of the victims were boys, and one girl was age 16, a teenager. For the death of Yetta Abramowitz (1915-1927) the criminal was described as a "tall young man" and was seen by several people.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fishy Fish stories

A lot of the Fish stories come from his interviews to be declared insane. He told stories of molesting hundreds of children, but could only provide details, and confessed to three of them according to the New York Times. Most stories never matched up with his timeline of travel except the three he confessed to, and the one where he was painting a house in the same area.

I want to move the Vampire stories down to the section on "potential victims" since he was never charged with the murders or confessed to them, other than Gaffney and McDowell and the two or three stabbings from 1910-1920, where it isn't clear from the sources if they died. There are lots of websites claiming more victims. And police like to take all unidentified killings and attribute them to current convicted killers to clear up the caseload. Murders should be attributed to him if 1) he confessed 2) or, there is forensic evidence linking him 3) or, he is found guilty in court. Suspicions should be placed under the proper header.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Attack or murder

"Fish, after he was sentenced to death, admitted that he committed his first murder, Thomas Bedden (1886-1910?) in Wilmington in 1910. This was followed by the murder of a mentally retarded boy in 1919. He was tortured and mutilated to death."

Which of the two is "he" referring to? Another report says he stabbed them and ran away, and doesnt know if they lived or died. Anyone have a clue or a third source? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

15

How many victims did actually fall prey to Albert Fish? It is speculated that Fish may have indeed murdered at least fifteen children and assaulted hundreds ... Source: River of Blood: Serial Killers and Their Victims - Page 114 by Amanda Howard, Martin Smith - 2004 - 372 pages

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

6

"When and where Fish first became a murderer is unknown. He confessed to six killing and referred vaguely to dozens more, although the victims, dates and places were lost to his hazy memory. He did confess to murdering a man in Wilmington, Delaware; mutilating and torturing to death a mentally retarded boy in New York in 1910; killing a Negro boy in Washington also in 1919; molesting and killing four year-old William Gaffney in 1929; and strangling to death five year-old Francis McDonnell on Long Island in 1934. The most sensational murder carried out by Fish was the abduction and horrific slaughter of Grace Budd in 1928. Her abduction led to a man hunt that lasted for six years. The police have given up hope of ever solving her mysterious disappearance until a slender clue, gleaned from an anonymous letter sent to the girl's parents, led detectives to Albert Fish." [1]

15

"Albert Fish (15) Meet the patron saint of sadomasochism. Albert Fish, the granddaddy of the deranged, enjoyed implanting needles in his genitalia, stuffing his asshole with flaming alcohol balls, eating shit, killing children and making stews out of their remains. The father of six, Albert lost it after his wife left him for another man. Despondent Al asked his kids to beat him with a nail-studded paddle until he bled. He thought that he was Christ and that God had ordered him to castrate boys. Good Al did was he was told, and enjoyed it thoroughly. This dirty old man from hell was in the habit of molesting and killing children of both sexes." [2] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article?

I was going to fail this article as GA candidate, but ironically, another editor promoted it while I was writing up my concerns. Although the article is in pretty good shape, I believe it fails the GA criteria on a couple of points. These need to be addressed if the article is to remain categorized as a good article.

1. The article isn't that well organized. Some events are presented chronologically, but others are out of order, and the biography is broken down into too many sections.

The events are written in the timeline of his capture, earlier murders are only confessed to at a later date. Thats how Crime Library handles the timeline, and the book on him. Both present the information in the order of their discovery, not in real time. Thats because the information wasnt determined until his confession.

2. Apart from the biography, there is little well-organized information. In particular, the trivia section bugs me -- some of those entries seem utterly unimportant, while more important ones are missing (wasn't Fish, along with Ed Gein, the model for Hannibal Lecter)?

No! Harris has never divulged any influences for creating Lecter, all is speculation.

Still, perhaps notable speculation? (Especially if it can be said definitively that Harris has not divulged his influences.)

I don't think an encyclopedic article should have speculation.

Pop reference removed

Mangojuice^talk 10:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 3. I don't like the use of so many extensive quotes. The letter Fish sent to Budd's mother is worth including, perhaps, but the other quotes seem excessive.

All removed

4. I'm a bit concerned about the images in this article -- they don't have a clear source (IMO, probably copied from crimelibrary, where I saw them before). I'm not sure the images are copyrighted, but I'm not sure they're free, and the ones that are tagged as copyrighted now don't really have fair use rationales, which they should. (This alone would not cause me much concern, but it's worth bringing up.) The 1903 image is PD, the mugshot falls under mugshot fair use, and the grace budd image is in dozens of books and also in the Corbis archive as origin unknown, it was released when she went missing by the police.

Good luck on improving it, I think it's a worthy topic and a good start. (I've assessed the article as B-class.) Mangojuice^talk 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no one's been addressing these issues, so I've delisted the article. Feel free to renominate if the issues are addressed. Let strengthen my concern #2: Good articles should not have trivia sections, like the "popular culture" section in this article. See WP:AVTRIV. Mangojuice^talk 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? Can one person represent a consensus? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't pretend to represent a consensus all on my own. However, this is the way the WP:GA procedure works. As I said, anyone may feel free to renominate. Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

• Fish's crimes are recounted in Harold Schecter's Deranged and The Serial Killer Files.
• In Stephen King and Peter Straub's novel Black House, the serial killer known as "The Fisherman" is loosely based on Fish. The character, like Fish, engages in both cannibalism and child murder. Furthermore, several of the letters the Fisherman sends to grieving parents are intentionally similar to Fish's own letters.
• Fish is mentioned in Chapter 11 of The Space Merchants as an example of an extreme masochist.
• Marilyn Manson drummer Ginger Fish's stage name was derived in part from Albert Fish.
• The Weasels (who have recorded a series of songs over the past two decades about various notorious killers) memorialized Fish in their song titled "A Fish."
• 'Murder metal' band Macabre have written three songs about him, namely "Albert was Worse than any Fish in the Sea", "Mr. Albert Fish Was Children Your Favorite Dish" and "Fishtales".
• The Blood Duster song Albert is a reference to Albert Fish.
• Grind band Dahmer have written a song about him, "Albert Hamilton Fish".
• In House of 1000 Corpses, a wax figure of Fish is one of the many serial killers and madmen present on Captain Spaulding's nightmarish Murder Ride. Spaulding describes in lurid detail the extent of Fish's crimes and masochistic acts that he inflicted on himself.
• The lyrics for the song "Document. Grace Budd" by The Number Twelve Looks Like You are the last lines from the letter to Grace Budd's parents.
• In 2007, two films will be released about Albert Fish; one entitled simply Albert Fish, with Oto Brezina starring, and the other Wisteria: The Story of Albert Fish, with Patrick Bauchau in the title role.
• Inside Cannibal Corpse's album "Butchered At Birth", the last lines of the letter to Grace Budd's parents are quoted along with a quote from Baron Gilles de Rais.
• The character Herbert on Family Guy is based on Albert Fish.

GA on hold

This article was a former GA article so there shouldn't be too many problems. Here's some of the suggestions I have before I'll return it to GA.

1. Well written?: Very good but fix the redirects, add wikilinks, and fix the sentences listed below.

• Fix redirects for: child molester, Washington, District of Columbia (also in the infobox), death penalty, religious mania, heart attack, Washington, DC, homosexual, prostitute, St. John, San Francisco, Brooklyn, New York, boogey man, psychiatrists, urophilia, masochism, Frederic Wertham, death sentence, Far Rockaway, Queens, Frederic Wertham, sadism and masochism, genitals, & sado-masochism.

: is this Wikipedia policy or a personal obsession? I can see if the redirect is a mispelling such as the link to Wertham, but changing valid synonyms to match exact article titles seems unusual. What purpose does it serve? Can you quote the exact policy?

• Wikilink of further explain the following: orphanage, erection, brothel, porter, fully wikilink the Equitable Life Assurance Company while avoiding the redirect, & trolley.

:linked

• The intro paragraph has to many "He"s at the beginning of the sentences, try varying it up more, such as "authorities stated that he..."

:fixed

• Remove some of the phrasing throughout the article of "he said", since sources are mainly used, not just his personal accounts. Examples: "By 1890, Albert had arrived in New York City, and he said he became a male prostitute." & "He said he had been named after Hamilton Fish, a distant relative."

:It is written this way because there is sometimes a big gap between what he said and verifiable facts. Sourcing it to a book will not distinguish it for the reader whether he said it or it is a verifiable fact. For instance he said he molested 100 children, but that doesn't fit into the known facts and timeline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• After semicolon, remove capital F: "Following this rejection, Fish began to hear voices; For example, he once wrapped himself up in a carpet,"

:fixed

• In the last two paragraphs of his early life, the years are out of sequence, correct them so they are in a proper timeline.

:fixed

• If you can, further explain his attack on Thomas Bedden. How did he attack him? Was he injured/killed?

: nothing more is known

• In the Billy Gaffney section, the first statement has "with with" in it, fix that.

:fixed

• Combine some of these sentences or add more detail as it appears too choppy: "Billy's parents were Elizabeth and Edward Gaffney. Elizabeth visited Fish in Sing Sing to try and get more details of her son's death.[16] Fish confessed to the murder."

:fixed

• "After being sentenced Fish confessed to the murder of eight-year-old Francis X. McDonnell, killed on Staten Island." change to "who was killed on Staten Island"

2. Factually accurate?: It appears that there are a lot of sources and inline citations, which is good. If possible, you should add some inline citations to the Paraphilias section.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all aspects of his life and crimes, good job here.

4. Neutral point of view?: Appears NPOV, make sure it stays that way.

5. Stability?: Don't see any problems, nor foresee any in the future.

6. Images?: Good source of images, but either add a fair use rationale to Image:Fish9.jpg or change the license (if it's over a hundred years old, use the other license in the first image). Expand on the fair use rationales for the other images if they need them. Three words isn't enough to cover it. Look to similar articles of GA/FA status for examples.

:fixed

Overall, this article will easily return to GA once the above suggetions are fixed. I'll give you up to seven days to fix them, where I will then either pass or fail the article. Let me know on my talk page when you finish fixing these or if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can probably add some of the Paraphilias section back into the article if the image supports the information. Don't include anything that is not sourced. Also, break up the headings so the majority of the article doesn't fall under biography. Perhaps don't use biography as a heading, just go straight into early life, and include the early attacks and victims under a single heading that you decide on. You could also split up the trial and execution into a single heading if possible. --Nehrams2020 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Paraphilias

thumb|right|Fish inserted over a dozen needles into his pelvis and perineum According to Frederic Wertham, who examined him for his fitness to stand trial, Fish had many paraphilias. For example, he would insert a long-stemmed rose into his penis and look at himself in the mirror, then he would remove the rose and eat it. His others included sadism and masochism, flagellation, exhibitionism, voyeurism, piquerism, pedophilia, coprophagia, fetishism, urolagnia, and cannibalism. Doctors examining him for his trial found that he drove needles into his body, mostly around his genitals. He said he tried sticking a needle in his scrotum but it was too painful, and there were needles in his pelvis that were permanently embedded. He would stuff cotton balls soaked with lighter fluid into his rectum and set fire to them. Wertham was told many stories, some were confirmed by his family, and by physical evidence; others didn't match any forensic evidence. Wertham found Fish showed violence towards animals at a young age. Fish said that he and a friend soaked a horse's tail in kerosene and set it alight to see the results. He fell from a cherry tree and never fully recovered from the injury. He wet his bed when he was in an orphanage, and was mocked by his companions for this. His penchant for cannibalism, Fish claimed, came from when his elder brother Walter returned from the US Navy and told him stories of cannibalism and sado-masochism which Walter said he witnessed.

GA passed

I am returning this article back to its GA status after the above suggestions were fixed. Some things that still can be improved is for the images, expand on the fair use rationale. The instructions in the license say to add a detailed fair use rationale, not "Person is dead, lo res, no revenue loss". That shouldn't be too much of a problem to fix. Continue to expand the article by searching any other available sources for information. Keep up the good work, and make sure all new information that is included is well-sourced with inline citations. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Typo in Billy Gaffney section

Reads "Fish confessed he following:" should be "Fish confessed the following:" with the "T" in "the". Not logged in, and don't care to. :) 75.73.47.55 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material

I have found nothing in any of my research about Albert Fish to show that he started a homosexual relationship, or tried to castrate a mentally disabled partner. If someone can show me a source please do.

In the A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers (2006), Harold Schechter et al slate Colin Wilson for homophobia in his earlier popular work. It does seem to be the case that he was engaged in multiple paraphilias, but he seemed to be incapable of developing a relationship with an adult male. He was clearly a paedophile.

I also seriously question the cited assertion that the telegraph boy whom he established a relationship with 'taught' him sexual practices like coprophagia and urolagnia. These practices were associated with only the most heavy-duty forms of sadomasochism before the onset of HIV/AIDS, primarily because they serve as vectors of disease like STIs. In the nineteenth century, cholera and typhus might also have been risks. If these assertions are from Fish himself, have they been independently authenticated? Sure, he was a paedophile, but homosexuality is a sexual orientation, while paedophilia is a form of mental illness.

Calibanu (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Calibanu

Early Attacks

"On July 11, 1924 Fish found eight-year-old Beatrice Kiell playing alone on her parents' Staten Island farm. He offered her money to come and help him look for rhubarb in the neighboring fields. She was about to leave the farm when her mother chased Fish away. Fish left, but returned later to the Kiel's barn where he tried to sleep for the night before being discovered by Hans Kiel and told to leave.[7]"

This section is under the heading, "Early Attacks", but it doesn't seem to involve an attack. It also doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. I hesitate to remove it because it is sourced, but perhaps someone (the author?) could explain why this was important, move it, or remove it.

Thanks!--Heyitspeter 09:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

IMDB listing of movie credit for alternate source of spelling

Yes, I saw it and annotated it. I don't know which is correct, so both should stay. Who says IMDB is not a reliable source? It seems that the makers of a movie would have done some research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, um, we have this thing called WP:RS... sorry, but we have to follow it. IMDB (user-edited, not scholarly, covering film characters and not history) certainly does not count as a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. If you want it to stay find a real source. DreamGuy 05:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• IMDB is not user edited. I am reverting again, any source that shows an alternate spelling should be in a footnote. Your deleting a reference then asking for one in the same breath. I don't buy it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Offensive

I'm not sure, but should'nt there be some kind of warning at the top of the page? I came accross it while surfing, starting with Guy Pearce, so it's not like I was looking for sadistic serial killers. I'm not saying the page should be removed of course, but maybe youngsters should get a warning about what's on this page. I'll do it myself, but I'm not sure how and don't want to mess the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.194.176 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No... Wikipedia isn't censored and it should be pretty obvious the page isn't going to be a dance in the lily fields with Tinky Winky given the introduction "Albert Hamilton Fish was an American sado-masochistic serial killer and cannibal." Richard001 (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review — kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 06:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual relationship in youth

I reverted this edit. The justification for that edit was: "In what way is him being homosexual related to his various dissonant escapades? Pure homophobia, and justly removed." It is not "homophobic" to make a factual statement about the behavior of Fish. His engagement in a homosexual relationship has nothing to do with other people who engage in homosexual relationships.

Yes, some misguided people believe that there is a connection between homosexuality and mental deviance, which is, of course, nonsense. Nevertheless, we must not remove factual material about Fish in an effort to "protect" homosexual people from being thought of as "deviant".

I would also like to point out that Fish should probably not even be referred to as "homosexual" because he engaged in sexual activity with women in brothels, with his wife, and he sexually abused children, none of which have anything to do with homosexuality - clearly, Fish had varied sexual interests. Whatever404 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The objection (in my reading anyway) wasn't to the mention of his "homosexual relationship," it was to that relationship being included in a list of items clearly intended to show that he had been damaged by his previous treatment in such a way that he engaged in digusting, abberant behaviors - such as copraphagia and pedophilia. If we want to include a mention of the relationship in question, it certainly shouldn't be part of that list. That is, indeed, evidence of pure homophobia.

Also, there is no reason, other than an unhealthy emphasis, to include the word "homosexual" in that passage. What non-homosexual relationship can one boy have with another boy?

Think of it this way - What if an article included the passage

However, his various experiences before this had affected him. He started a multiracial relationship in 1882, at the age of 12, with an Afro-American girl. The girl also introduced Fish to such practices as drinking urine and coprophagia.

I'll try to change the way the section is worded so as to retain the mention of the relationship with the other boy and remove its current homophobic implications. I hope nobody objects. Sylvia A (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, a very large number of men have sex with other men while incarcerated. I don't think it's notable that Albert Fish did too. This strikes me as somebody's idea of more evidence that he was a pervert, not important facts about his life and how he lived it. Sylvia A (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Victims

What evidence ties Fish to Abramowitz, O'Connor and Collings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaylockjam10 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He was suspected, and the article has been edited to reflect that, with references. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Early life through age 55?

The Early Life section ends with him at age 55. I think we should either divide the section into periods of his life or rename it. Sylvia A (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Albert Fish/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Expand lead. Quadzilla99 13:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Too detailed?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a collection of horror novels. Whilst, of course, Fish's crimes should be mentioned, one could dispute if it is necessary to get so detailed about how exactly he tortured, killed and cooked his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.28.95 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. "He sent a letter detailing how he killed and ate the child to the parents," would be much better. There is a link to the full text for those who wish to read it. these block quotes are unnecessary and sensationalistic. untwirl (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, here are the issues. Firstly, Wikipedia isn't censored, so to remove the block quotes based on them being too detailed would seem to me to be censoring it. The first block quote has the text from the letter sent, and in that it has historic significance, much as the letters Jack the Ripper sent. The second quote is the exact confession, which also has historic significance, keeping in mind that this is what Fish said he did, not necessarily what he did. The other issue is that this has been designated a good article, which, I believe, occurred with the blocks intact. There is the point that cutting the quotes, which GA reviewers accepted, could jeopardize the GA status. Having said all of this, I mostly monitor the article to remove the endless vandalism, and I wasn't one of the editors who worked so hard to get the article to a GA status and it would help to get their input. You might try Richard Arthur Norton and Wjhonson. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your response. i didnt want to start making edits without first hearing the rationale. (btw - the first post in this section isnt mine- only the second.) the main difference i see between this and the jack the ripper letters is the length. i'll look at other articles with quotes from primary sources and see what the standard is. thanks. untwirl(talk) 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite ludicrous to be honest. I know Wikipedia isn't censored but children can access this site no problem and the block quotes are really disturbing. I agree with the idea to make a link to the quotes and remove them from this site. Bonzostar (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is one of the issues, I think. There really isn't a standard, except in the case of copyrighted material, something for which these don't qualify. In the case of Jack the Ripper, the letters weren't long, so that is a self-limitation. I'd still urge talking to Richard Arthur Norton and/or Wjhonson or asking them to comment here. They were the ones who worked on the article at the time of the GA review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's no question of whether this would offend people or if it is inappropriate for children to read. Those points have no bearing on inclusion or exclusion within Wikipedia. If the argument to remove is based on either/both of these points, the argument will fail. If you want to remove it, show an encyclopedic reason to remove it. A possible parallel situation is the Death of Kurt Cobain article, which includes the entirety of his last writing. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not just collapse the letters? Censorship is subjective. We can't delete content because it may be offensive in some country somewhere in the world. Wayne (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

15,000 words

There is no way that this is true: "The last question Dempsey asked Wertham was 15,000 words long, detailed Fish's life and ended with asking how the doctor considered his mental condition based on this life." Gcolive (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is stated in the reference given. If Dempsey detailed Fish's life then 15,000 words is probably right. Wayne (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In a murder case, if the defence counsel believes that asking a 15,000 word question will improve his/her client's chances of acquittal/insanity plea then they will ask a 15,000 word question. The question will be for the jury's sake, reminding them of all the occasions in Fish's life where he would appear to have shown signs of mental illness. In another case the defence might go on for 15,000 words about how much of a upstanding citizen the defendant is, obviously that would not be appropriate in the Fish trial.--EchetusXe 12:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A 15,000-word question isn't impossible. It might go like this. "Doctor, I will present you with a situation and ask for your opinion. The situation is as follows. When the person was 6 months old, so-and-so happened. When he was 2, he did this. At 4, he did that; when asked about it, he replied as follows." And so on. "Now, Doctor, in this situation, what is your opinion of the person's mental state?" Answer: "He is insane." The purpose of such a question is to present the entire story to the jury and, of course, to get the psychiatrist to say that the accused is insane. 216.106.106.7 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter from an individual concerned that this article constitutes a copyright infringement of the film Portraits in Evil. The article has been blanked as this allegation is investigated. Contributors to the article who may have seen the film are requested to, please, help clarify this matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that claim is specious and (with apologies) crap. The entire article is clearly not a copyright violation of a film or documentary. It would help immensely to know what parts of the article are being disputed as copyright violations. Everything I can find on this documentary indicates it was released on DVD in January 2009 [http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Serial-Killers-Portraits-Evil/dp/B001LN6NRE]. This article has remained relatively unchanged (see version last edited on July 22, 2009), mostly having stylistic changes, since September 2, 2007, not long after it was first designated as a good article [3]. The article is fairly well referenced, indicating where the content was obtained. If a documentary released in January 2009 is too close in content to an article that was designated a good article in February 2007, I would suggest another explanation should be considered. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what parts of the article are in dispute. I'm afraid that the letter we received was rather vague on details, though I have already requested clarification on specifics. It may very well be that the film infringed on Wikipedia (seems likely if the film came out in 2009). If the concerns are misguided, it should all be cleared up fairly quickly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you echo my sentiments, I think. Hopefully this will resolve soon. As I said, I've followed this article for years, and it developed honestly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If the correspondent points out a specific passage of concern and it predates the film, we can swiftly remove the template. If we don't get a response in a timely manner, the template will also soon be removed. A comparison of the dates you provide above, [4], confirms that not much has changed.

In the meantime, I'd ask contributors to please be patient with the process, which is here after all to protect the project. If these concerns aren't substantiated, we'll have at worst the inconvenience of blanking a great article for a couple of days. If the correspondent responds more swiftly, it could be cleared up sooner, and I am watching for his response. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that this is entirely spurious:

1. The article, in substance, predates the documentary.
2. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a text article to be a copyright infringement of a movie (copyright protects expressions of ideas, not the actual ideas themselves— it's possible that a text article copying dialog or narration might be a copyvio, but the prose style of the article doesn't match either)
3. The person who complained to OTRS is unable or unwilling to state a verifiable claim.

My call would be, remove the blanking and close the ticket. — Coren ^(talk) 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Having just read the latest communication from the letter-writer and finding he has not responded to my request for an example of problematic text in this article, I am restoring the text pending production of some additional evidence. (I'm with you in most points, but I'm not sure I understand this: "It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a text article to be a copyright infringement of a movie." It seems not only possible (as you say), but quite simple for a text article to infringe a movie by transcribing either dialog or narration...not much more challenging than it is to infringe on a prose source. I haven't seen the film, so I have no clue what the prose style is of that film. ) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am certain there is no copyright violation here, at least on our part. Whether prose styling on the documentary is like this article, which predates the documentary, says something else entirely. I'm glad this is closed now and appreciate your attention. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What I've been trying to figure is whether the documentaries predate the collection. I'm not that familiar with the direct-to-video market (read: at all), but it seemed plausible to me that a 10-hour documentary series might have collected some kind of previously televised miniseries. If so, it could be that a single episode that aired some time back was used here. But I haven't found anything to indicate that these documentaries were previously released, and I'm thinking from the Mill Creek Entertainment boast on its sell sheet that this is an "Exclusive Documentary Series" that this is probably not the case. (I am confused, though, why they evidently have a title-screen for each hour-long episode.) I'm willing to rent the Holmes video, since I'm with a service anyway and it is evidently at least some kind of award winner, but this one is not available for rent and I will not buy it. Wikipedia can have my life, but my husband would kill me if I started spending my entertainment budget to evaluate copyright concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything to support the films being shown anywhere prior to release either. Perhaps it was made in anticipation of sales to some cable network like Court TV or Biography? I wouldn't buy it either, from the little I've read, it's badly made, full of errors and inconsistencies from other sources. I'll be interested to see what you find out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Execution story

I had read in more than one source (which unfortunately I do not possess at this time) that when electrocuted, the many needles and other objects he inserted into his groin short circuited the electric chair and they had to adjust the wiring several times before successful execustion. I see no mention of this while it is certainly interesting and notable. Of course, I obviously don't have any sources at this time. Just bringing it up for someone more studied to include. Or perhaps debunk. -206.24.49.1 (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never read that and basically, I can't see how that would happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I read a Biography on him called Deranged and the author Harold S. states how this did NOT happen at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.58.60 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite template

Cite policy if you are going to remove data from the citation templates please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard, this is an extremely old issue with you.It isn't an issue of policy, it is an issue of understanding what you are adding. The title of the newspaper article you added does not include the old-fashioned way of including excessive sub-titles. The title of the article to which you link is "Police Try To Link Budd Girl's Slayer To 3 Other Crimes." It is not "Police Try To Link Budd Girl's Slayer To 3 Other Crimes. Fish Questioned On O'Connor, Collings And Gaffney Cases. He Denies Part In Them. Westchester To Try Him Transfer Of Prisoner To That County Now Pending. Child's Skeleton Is Unearthed. Police Try To Link Slayer To 3 Crimes." Those subtitles are not necessary. Nor are your copy and pasted quotes, which basically encompass everything present on the page of the link you added. There is absolutely no reason to slop in a quote that simply repeats the content in the link. As hard as I realize this is for you, it is totally excessive and unnecessary. If the content wasn't presented in the link, then the quote would be valid. As it is, it isn't valid fair use. Not to mention you hid what you were doing on the next to the last revert under a deceptive edit summary, which effectively hid your actions. Also please stop adding empty parameters to the citations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have given up and reported the above editor for violations of 3RR and making personal attacks on his talk page. Unfortunately, he just doesn't seem to get that using blank parameters, excessive subtitles and copy and pasting entire article contents into a quote function isn't good practice. Discussion is futile as he only reverts, hides his reverts under deceptive edit summaries and can't see the forest for the trees. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For the fifth time, please cite a written Wikipedia rule. If there is no Wikipedia rule, you are imposing your arbitrary personal taste in how you want Wikipedia to be formatted and what parameters should be used and not used in the citation template. If you think a rule should exist that the title parameter should be restricted to a single sentence, lobby to get that rule passed. That way it can be enforced globally, and not just here at a single article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

• Must unused cite parameters be removed from templates until they are filled in?
  • No they may be filled in later and are not seen by readers when empty. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Must titles of books and news articles be limited to the first sentence?
  • No Full titles should be used, there is no compelling reason to remove the full article title. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Must quotes be removed from citations because the violate copyright?
  • No See arguments at: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Quotes in citations Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RAN asked for my comments.

How much quoting is appropriate depends on several factors: the function in the article, the free availability elsewhere, the encyclopedic rather than sensational or propagandistic purpose, the extent to which the quote might replace the needs for a long rewording of the same material. The actual fair use restrictions in the US will rarely come into the picture, but the key variable that will affect us is the proportion of the quote to the original work: one cannot claim fair use for an entire short newspaper article, regardless of length.

Whether the quote should go into the article or the footnote is also a matter of judgment--my view is that a long quote in the article should not be repeated in the footnote. The key point of putting it into the footnote is to provide for WP:V, especially of non -free or especially of hard to access material, and particularly of material likely to be challenged, such as controversial political or critical opinion, or a disputed fact such as year of birth or nationality.

As for style, I think short quotes are usually best, and I think adding emphasis to a quote by boxing or especially by pull quotes to be something to be done rather sparingly.

The question for this article seems to be the letters: I would remove the box. I would probably keep only the key portions. I would source them not just to the convenience web source used, but to the actual original. I think our writing about crime does tend to be a little over-sensational and over-detailed. This article is not really very much over the mark in that respect, considering the unavoidable nature of the material. I would make it clearer what parts of this depend only upon his own account of his life and his own confessions. Personally, if it were not for the x-rays, I would have considerable doubts about his basic veracity.

The question of homosexuality was raised above. In his day, this would no doubt have been seen as adding to the extent of his perversity and even as explaining all that came after his early experiences. I think most people can realise the historical element as well as I can. To a considerable extent, this is helped by the use of quotations. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Emma Richardson

I see references for all of the others listed as having been killed by Fish or suspected of having been killed by Fish, but no references for Emma Richardson or any details for her other than her being listed as one of his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.213.240 (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the same reference as for Francis X. McDonnell and Billy Gaffney. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Rapist?

Fish is described as a rapist on this page and the Glasgow Smile page (from which I got to this page), but as I understand it, he never actually sexually assaulted anyone, and the sexual charges were made to avoid bringing up the cannibalism. I am aware that what he did do is quite horrifying in its own right, but I don't think describing him as a rapist is quite accurate.204.119.140.66 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"He also said he began raping young boys, a crime he kept committing even after his mother arranged a marriage.", the source for which is http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/fish/index.html. Geoff B (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone claiming they raped boys doesn't mean they actually did, that would only be evidence to convey that claim. Besides, your reference links to the homepage which doesn't support that. Which of the 25 pages does? More specific URLs please. Ranze (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong famine?

I'm curious if this part of the letter is any bit real? All I can find mention of is bubonic plague in that year and some famine a little earlier, but no mention of the children being kidnapped and sold for food. I'm guessing it's fake, just wondering what other info anyone might have on it. User:-Wa-Wa (User talk:-Wa-talk) 03:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that it happened, but it's certainly possible. Cannibalism isn't as uncommon as we would like to think

On the other hand, Fish suffered from delusions and invented a number of excuses to explain his behavior. This could be one of them. 173.78.66.133 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nauseating

The contents of this article are sickening to read.
I am 50 years of age, and this is possibly the most grotesque thing I have ever made the mistake of reading.
It is like something you would expect to find at Ogrish.com.
I like the suggestion made up above that the letters be collapsed.
Varlaam (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

They are confessions written by a cannibal child-rapist, one might expect the letters to be gruesome. I don't think a warning is necessary.--EchetusXe 12:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is far too much detail on this page, which today is featured on the main page of English wikipedia. I think it verges on the prurient. Totorotroll (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any policies to cite here, but wouldn't it be an idea to give a warning to children at the top of the page that this contains graphic content. I don't think that much of this is at all suitable for children to read, that the letters, in particular, describe extreme sexual violence and are pornographic. Totorotroll (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

LGBT project

The LGBT WikiProject's banner was recently removed, with the edit summary "no obvious connection." Given that the article clearly states one or two of Fish's relationships with men, I propose the banner be replaced. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to consider this subject in a structured way.

Firstly, on the WikiProjects LGBT Studies discussion page, you qualify Fish as 'gay', which you have interpreted from the text subjectively. Is it not difficult to justify the term 'relationship' when applied, as I imagine you did, to his exposure at the age of 12 (consensual?) to a youth who "introduced Fish to such practices as drinking urine and eating feces" or later experiences "raping young boys"? Is it not also difficult to justify your use of 'men' (WikiProjects LGBT Studies discussion page) when it is clear in the article that Fish was almost exclusively paedophiliac in his tendencies? Apart from his relationships with women, that is. As I'm sure you're aware, the difference between 'men' and 'boys' is vitally important (homosexuals ≠ paedophiles). Nevertheless, if we really do want to entertain that Fish was homosexual, how are we to know that his 'relationships' stemmed from the fact he was 'gay' and were not in fact a manifestation of his mental illness? In addition, while it might seem obvious to a modern audience that having 'relationships' with 'men' makes you a homosexual, is it as clear-cut as that (cf. gender relations and Islam, pederasty from antiquity to the late 19th century, etc)?

That is an aside. An important aside. Please now refer back to my comments on the discussion page. I assume you agreed with my first question, namely that LGBT, despite its strong cultural associations developed and defined in the 1990s, apply directly to Fish (though I would like you to explain that too). To make reference to my second question, then, you now need to prove that Fish's sexuality and gender identity-based culture is sufficiently important as to have contributed to his notability, i.e. at least partly because he was 'gay', as you say, he committed his crimes. I'm sure at the time of his trial the fact that Fish had had 'relationships' with 'men' and the fact that he then went on to eat children was considered part and parcel of his insanity; is that the case today?

There is no justification for including Fish under the WikiProjects LGBT Studies banner. It is flimsy and casual and ill considered. Not only that, but it plays directly into the hands of those who would see LGBT extended to LGBTP. 83.244.230.115 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You have some very strong emotions on this subject, I sense, so I want to tread lightly here :)

I have no idea if Fish was gay (or more likely bisexual). As you state, these are constructs that seem to have come about in the 1950s or so, though estimates and experts disagree on when and where they came about.

WP:LGBT is a WikiProject aimed at improving articles in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Studies topics. The project has had several discussions on whether or not that includes pedophilia and/or pedophiles. My opinion, however, is that Fish's article is a "bisexual topic" and/or a "queer studies topic". His attraction as a boy to other boys, his later (age 20+) male prostitution, and his (age 28) "male lover", along with his marriage and relationships with women, would seem to indicate that he was attracted to both sexes - therefore the "bisexual topic".

Furthermore, the pedophilia, "morbid interest in castration", his self-mutilation of his genitals, all of these are part of "queer studies topics".

I'm interested to hear some third opinions on the question of putting the LGBT banner back. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I too weigh in with a certain trepidation -- as I am neither gay, bisexual, transgender, nor a pedophile, I'm not sure if my opinion will count for much -- but for what it's worth, I have to agree that listing Fish under the LGBT banner would serve no useful purpose, and will only provide ammunition to the bigots and ignoramuses (ignorami?) of the world who assume, in their blind prejudice and hate, that "gay" and "pedophile" are synonyms. My two cents. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Fish was gay, bi questioning or other. The LGBT banner states "WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues." Note my emphasis on "related." Also note "comprehensive." Fish exhibited a homosexual attraction. It is related to LGBT. This article falls under this broadly defined criteria and the banner should be restored. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But in your zeal to incorporate every single article with even a remote association to LGBT, is it not possible, at least in this case, that you will be doing more harm than good? I, for one, can see the downside of including Fish under the banner, but I don't really see any upside. If there is one, please educate me. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Zeal? Anyway one of the benefits is that via the project's Recent Changes facility more eyes will be watching the article to help with NPOV. What is the "downside"? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See my earlier note. More bigots will be watching too. DoctorJoeE (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I came across this page after reading an article on another website, and thought I'd offer an opinion. Removing the LGBT banner because those who label themselves as part of said group don't wish to be associated with him is an absurd argument, it's not as if it's being proposed that he's some sort of role model. Equally, people who will use Fish as representative of a relationship between peadophilia and the LGBT community are going to find ways to express their fear/hatred anyway, wikipedia shouldn't be influenced by fear of ignorance. In my opinon this discussion is like a project on United States politics refusing to cover any pages on Republicans because they don't agree with their views - he either belongs within the project or not, but how much we like him is completely irrelevent to that. Reading the article, and the points raised by both Lionelt and SatyrTN, to me suggests the article falls within the very broad scope of project LGBT. BulbaThor (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath or two, relax, read WP:TIGER, and adjust your attitude toward a more civil form of conversation. The only "absurd" arguments are, of course, the ones you don't personally agree with. And you're going to have to explain your political-orientation-vs.-mental-illness analogy in a bit more detail. Are you saying that pedophiles are to LGBT in the same way that Republicans are to politics? My understanding is that there is no more approval of pedophilia within the gay community than there is of heterosexual men molesting young girls (or women molesting boys) within the straight community. It's not a question of "agreement", it's a question of right and wrong.

And I will repeat my initial question, which no one has bothered to take a shot at answering: What is to be gained by including a pedophile, and a particularly ghastly one at that, under the LGBT banner? What will it accomplish, beyond satisfying some sort of compulsion to include anyone with any sort of connection, however tenuous? The downside, as mentioned, is fairly obvious; what is the upside? Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

For me absurd is the correct word to use, rejecting covering a topic due to ill-feeling towards it when it satisfies the criteria being set to be included is somewhat irrational. I wasn't suggesting a literal relationship, that Republicans are the peadophiles of politics, but one of the main arguments against his inclusion seems to be a form of WP:JDLI. If I use myself to hopefully express a better example; I have an interest in philosophy, and due to that I have opinions on which philosophies/ers are more legitimate than others. If I let my personal beliefs judge which pages should be included under WP:Philosophy then entire schools of thought would be ignored because I simply don't agree with them. I don't believe him being a particularly vile person should merit his exclusion if he fulfils the criteria of WP:LGBT. His inclusion doesn't facilitate a necessary link between homosexuality and peadophilia, but his qualification for the project has been pointed out by other editors - the right or wrong of his actions are irrelevent.

I appreciate that people will not wish to connect themselves to him, but if his homosexuality is relevent to his fame (by which I don't mean it was the necessary cause) then he belongs in the project - Elton John's homosexuality isn't directly relevent to his fame, nor is Stephen Fry's, yet they are both included (clearly I'm not suggesting John or Fry are like Fish in any way other than homosexuality). If the project has a rationalisation behind distancing itself from anyone who could reflect badly upon their community it's one thing, but doing so due to a fear of being judged guilty by association by people who have already judged LGBTism unfavourably seems pointless, and actively striving to exclude people like Fish ultimately is a form of censorship with a tacit (and wrong) admission that it is LGBT's who should be ashamed of man/boy peadophiles, not other groups in society. I imagine no-one in the project even comes close to approving of what he did, but if his sexual orientation is relevent to his fame then he is relevent to the project.

I apologise if I sounded (sound?) uncivil, I don't mean to, and I have no great feeling one way or the other on his inclusion, but presented with the facts of his being and the facts of WP:LGBT, logic dictates that he belongs. BulbaThor (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To summarize, then:

Lionel, any person in the history of mankind who has exhibited a 'homosexual attraction' falls under the WikiProject LGBT studies. Deep breath. So, bearing in mind that for many adolescents puberty involves episodes of homosexual attraction before our spotty friend later decides that he or she is exclusively heterosexual in orientation. For you, however, homosexual attraction has been attested, so in they go. What about an errant sexual fantasy, in which one was attracted homosexually? What about moments where men or women have been caught off-guard, thought "phwoar he's a bit of alright", but realize later, to abject horror, that it's a person of the same sex? Well you've just warranted a LGBT banner - good for you. Lionel, there are tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of articles that are in need of their rainbow flags. Godspeed.

Bulbathor. Stephen Fry and Elton John are contemporary personalities, self-proclaimed homosexuals to boot, who have not only lived through the development and definition of this elusive concept of LGBT but who, care to admit or not, have seen their notabilities reinforced by their sexualities. They are ridiculously bad examples in this matter.

SatyrnTN, your comments are bizarre beyond analysis. Having said that, if I later develop the urge to castrate myself, my SO or a complete stranger, or touch up a child, I may find some comfort in the fact that I'm simply acting within the broader limits of 'queer studies'. As defined by you.

Much as I envy all of your black-and-white mentalities, and this apparently insatiable need you feel to categorize everyone and everything like a group of demented taxonomists, give it a break. Were Fish alive today, I doubt he would be declared fit to stand trial; his 'sexuality' was a manifestation of his mental illness and, like it or not, cannot be defined within our rudimentary system of sexual orientation, try as you might to mash that jigsaw puzzle piece into place. 78.147.64.233 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument that a WikiProject shouldn't tag an article because they might have to tag thousands of articles is way out of line. WikiProjects tag articles that fall within their scope - WP:MilitaryHistory has over 117,000 articles, WP:Biography has almost 1,000,000. WP:LGBT's paltry 12,000 is not going to overburden anything.

Furthermore, the project is pretty good about only tagging articles where the sexuality or sexual identity is notable. As previously shown, Fish's obsession with sex and/or gender in his victims and his psychoses makes it notable.

Finally, the project tags articles so they can watch over them and take care of vandalism as it pops up - you may not agree, but anti-gay vandalism is rampant, and removing it is an ongoing goal. Also, having the article tagged means that LGBT editors that may take an interest in the article are more likely to review it and improve it. Both of those are obvious benefits. The "downside" you've proposed is not relevant, IMO.

I'm replacing the banner. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

SatyrTN, you have now added new arguments (anti-gay vandalism?), not taken into account others and acted in the face of a number of dissenting opinions, both here and on the WikiProject talk page, without really providing a satisfactory rationale. You have also reinstated the banner (and why wouldn't you, considering your own natural bias?).

If the WikiProject LGBT studies banner is truly as meaningless as you seem to suggest it is, i.e. now covering anyone who is obsessed by sex (?) or who happens to be psychotic (?), then I have no problem whatsoever; it is a completely arbitrary label and not worth worrying about. However, that is not constructive, and probably doesn't reflect the reasons why you work on the project.

Assuming good faith, it seems that the Project suffers from a fundamental definitional problem, which could do with being considered. If we look at a number of sources, including Wikipedia, we cannot totally reconcile 'LGBT' with 'Queer Studies'; they overlap, of course, but this is a controversial area as recognised in the Wikipedia article itself. By suggesting that any 'antinormative sexual practice', such as castration or paedophilia, is covered by a WikiProject carrying the name LGBT, you are pushing for your own extremely inclusory definition of the term LGBT and ultimately using the WikiProject to further that view. Is this really desirable? 83.244.230.115 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, as someone not involved in that particular project I really have no dog in this fight (I follow the article as a member of the Crime & Criminal Biography Project), so y'all can do as you wish. But I would make three final points: (1) I still do not see how inclusion of sadistic sociopaths is in any way consistent with the goals of the LGBT project, as I understand them; (2) I don't see any reasoning behind the assertion that the downside of such inclusion -- that the connection is tenuous at best, and it plays directly into the hands of bigots and religious zealots -- is "irrelevant"; and (3) one and a half opinions in favor hardly constitutes "consensus", so I would guess you're much closer to the beginning of this debate than the end of it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I was surprised to see the LGBT banner there. I thought perhaps it was vandalism, so I was completely taken aback when I saw that a representative of the LGBT project was insisting the banner remain, whilst those outside of the project were arguing that the banner should be removed. I do not see how Fish relates to LGBT, even if he may have slept with a man at some point in his life. It does not make sense that this argument entitles Fish to have the LGBT banner and yet not be in the Category:LGBT people from the United States.--EchetusXe 11:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Bi guy, but too disgusting to acknowledge. Thus, all the backing away from a man who would otherwise qualify, being known to have relationships with men and women both. Good luck getting anyone to admit it, though. 213.205.194.100 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

you know just him coming out as bisexual is kinda good because he had the courage to do so.98.179.133.25 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Alex

William King

I hope that someone who is capable and qualified to write a historical article will read this. I see a dire need to write an article about the man who eventually captured Albert Fish; William King. I find it a bit distressing that so much is made of this reprehensible serial killer but little mention is made of the person who brought him to justice. Apparently King was relentless in his pursuit of Fish and is the primary reason Fish was arrested. Wikipedia needs an article about King, not just Fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.84.152 (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly laudable that Detective King brought Fish to justice, but do you have any other information about him? Is he noted for anything other than doing his job as a police officer? I did a fairly deep search and drew a blank. I'm afraid that if all we have on him is the fact that he arrested Fish, an article about him would be scarcely longer than the two sentences you have already written. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Like DoctorJoeE said, if the only thing King is notable for was his role in the Fish case, then that is not enough to base his own article on. In that case, the only reason King would be notable for is that he investigated and arrested Fish, and any information about him should appear in the present article. Do you have any more information about King that appears in reliable sources? Have any books or articles been written about him? Especially detailing his activities apart from the Fish case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bi guy, but too disgusting to acknowledge. Thus, all the backing away from a man who would otherwise qualify, being known to have relationships with men and women both. Good luck getting anyone to admit it, though. 213.205.194.100 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Excessive non-specific reliance on crime library reference

This reference is linked 9 times from what I can see, but the problem is that it lacks specificity. The link opens to the first page, and the TruTV.com article is 25 pages long.

Rather than repeating the same reference, I suggest we instead divide this into more specific links, that we link specifically to pages that corroborate the claims they are next to. Linking to the front page is not helpful at all.

We should have excerpts of this article that support the claims we're adapting here, to verify that the excerpts correspond to what is written, to make it clear what aspect of the TruTV article is being used to support a claim. Ranze (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

More potential victims

Several sites (not reliable) include two more known suspected victims of Fish. Robin Jane Liu and Emil Aaling. Even though I haven't been able to confirm that Fish actually was suspected of these, unlike O'Connor and Collings, maybe they still should be included as potential victims?

http://serialkillers.briancombs.net/2962/victims-of-albert-fish/ http://albert-fish-codybochese.weebly.com/victims.html http://criminalminds.wikia.com/wiki/Albert_Fish http://true-crime-and-cannibalism.tumblr.com/post/29888640708/albert-fishs-timline JohnEmilList (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Bedden/Kedden

I recently read some of Fish's original letters to his lawyer in John Borowski's book, "Albert Fish: In His Own Words", and have discovered that there was no 'Thomas Bedden'. Fish also attacked no one in St. Louis. The Bedden story somehow became convoluted, and was split into two separate incidents by various sources, but the original letter Fish wrote says that he partially castrated and carried on sadomasochistic sexual activity with a 19-year-old man named Thomas Kedden. Kedden was from Arkansas, but had rode a train to Delaware in the hopes of getting a job with Du Pont. I can reproduce the entire portion of the letter if needed, all you have to do is check Borowski's book and you will find that my claim is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:891D:85D9:F933:8095:97C0:B6CA (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The following is part of a letter written by Albert Fish detailing his encounter with Thomas Kedden (Warning: It is quite graphic):

Episode with 19 yr. old boy Thomas Thomas Kedden Kept him 10 days in room before finding the old house; 5 wks. there before leaving him. That was about 1910. First sadistic overwhelming. Intended to use him first, then torture him to death, then use the parts that appealed to me for food - I craved to hear someone scream & yell. About 25 years ago, or when I was 40 - I was doing a Painting job in Wilmington Del. I was rooming near Job on outskirts of city. Met a well built boy of 19. He had ran away from home in Arkansas on acct of being stripped naked and whipped by a brutal step Dad. He had a pretty face, would pass for 16 except for his size. Looked like a girl. He appeared to be kind of silly. He told me his story. Some one back home, told him he could get a job in Du Ponts. He beat his way in empty R.R. cars and by foot. When he got to Wilmington he was told no moore help were needed. He was silly in his actions and ways. Tho going on 20 and as strong as an ox. He was as easy to spank & switch as a boy of ten. He rode for two days in a banana car. Floor was covered with straw. Five men regular hoboes used him day and night. His behind was so sore from them it hurt him when he walked. He said all of them made him suck them off. At first he spit it out, but they beat him on his bare behind, with their belts and made him swallow it. He had the prettiest ad fattest behind I eve saw on a man. But he was covered from his neck down to his shins, with long black hair. You could hardly see his dickey or behind from hair. When I first met him he had not a cent and was almost stoned, no place to lay his head. I took him with me, to the place where I got my meals and we had supper. How he did eat. I enjoyed watching him and filled him up. Then I took him to my room for just what I wanted. I knew he was Lousey for he could not stop scratching. I made him take everything off. He was full of the biggest lice I ever seen. His clothes were full, his shoes, and hat worn out, I threw them out. I let good warm water run in the bath tub, until it was half full. Then I made him get in and sit flat on his behind. I told him to stay there until I got back. I went to a drug store and got a package of hair remover in a powdered form. I had a pair of clippers and I cut all the long hair off him. Then I got a tin can dumped the powder in it and added water. This made a Paste. I smeared it all on him. Let it stand ten minuets. Then I made him sit down in tub and took a spongue and a cake of soap. I washed him good, then made him stand up. When I touched his back - belly - behind and Dick, every hair fell off. Then he was really naked and how pretty he looked. A nice big dickey and fat behind. I wiped him dry. Then rubbed him all over with hair tonic. I loved him then and kissed him all over Then the fun began. It was a warm night and I went out and got a qt of ice cream. We eat about half of it. Then I stripped naked and got in bed. He kissed me in the mouth many times, my breast - belly - legs - dicky behind. I put ice cream in his behind and all on his dickey then licked it off. He done the same with me. Then I made him lay down on his knees, face down as I sat on side of bed. How sweet and pretty his bare naked ass looked to me. I kissed it a 100 times square in his sweet honey pot. Then I took my hair brush and used the back of it - to spank him. I made him yell ouch papa I will be a good boy. Yes I spanked him on his nice fat ass untied it, looked like a ripe tomato all over. Then it was his turn to be Papa. I was his boy and had done #2 in my pants. He gave me a bath then sat on side of bed and made me lay across his knees face down. He spanked my bare ass good and plenty. Made me yell - Ouch papa I wont do #2 in my pants again. I spanked him till he cried - he made me cry too. My ass was all red when he got thru. I saw it in the looking glass. How good it felt, when he spanked, but it hurt and I always wanted more and give him more. Nearly all night, we had fun. I sucked him off first, then he sucked me off. We played with each other and rested. Then I took Vasoline and smeared some in his behind also in my own. Then I stuck my dickey up his behind. He had a large sugar bowl and it went all the way up. How good it felt as I shoved it in. It slipped out once or twice. Then he did it to me. We put our arms around each other kissed and went to sleep. I bought him some clothes. That went on for about ten days. How I had whipped many boys and girls but they were gagged so they could make no out no cry. I craved for something different. I wanted to Lash - cut - burn a nice big fat pretty bare ass like Thomas had. Torture him, hear him scream with pain. I could not do it here- to many people. I began to look around. About a mile away there was an old farm house . It had the name of being haunted . No one had lived it in for several yrs. It stood back form the road about 200 ft, back of it was the barn. Three stalls and room for a carriage. Upstairs hog loft and Coachmans room. In it was a bed and a chair. The door and lock was in good order with a key. It as just the place to whip and torture Thomas just as I wished. I put a chamber in the room for him to use. Then one rainy day I bought a blanket and we came to the torture chamber. I made him strip bare naked and locked him in. Then I went back to my room. Next day I did not go to work .. I bought a sharp knife, box of matched and a pt of alcohol. I went back to the old house and got his clothes and put them with the other things in one of the stalls. There was a well in the yard, nice cold water. I filled an old pitcher full of water and gave it to him to drink. Then I cut about 20 switches off black berry bushes. They were full of thorns. I brought 2 book straps they use in school. I took up 3 switches and the straps and tied his hand behind him, then his feet. Now I said to him, I have you, just where I want you and the way I intend to keep you for next 2 weeks. Then I turned him over on his belly and began to torture his nice fat ass. I used one switch at a time. Struck him as hard as I could. Each blow the thorns stuck in his flesh. Often I would drag the switch instead of lifting it. Then It would tare and rip the cheeks of his fat ass. How he did scream. It was sweet music to my very soul to hear him and know that no one else could. Then I spanked him. How the blood did spatter on the blanket and all over the wall. Then I took the knife and slit his fat ass between the cheeks. I held my mouth to his ass and sucked the blood. Then I filled the pitcher with water untied his hands, locked him in and went home. Next evening I brought another blanket a small hammer - tacks - 6 candles. Then I could work in the day and torture him at night. I tucked blanket over window and by the light of a candle I could see him. For 5 days all he had was water and whippings. Then I brought him sandwiches and coffee. He was so hungry I made him eat his own #2, before I gave him food . Then I made him lay on his back in bed. I turned both of his legs backward on his head and strapped his feet to head of iron bed. Then I had his nice pretty fat ass, turned up to me, to do just what ever I could think of and that was plenty. The whole package of needles in the cheeks of his ass. It looked like a pin cushion. I stuck a pin all the way thru his dickey and one between his 2 balls. That was a Sat. night I left him just as he was all night and went home. Sunday I brought some food and a bottle of Peroxide. I pulled the needles out of his ass dickey and balls. How the blood did pour when I pulled them out of his dickey. It was as blue as ink. I pored Peroxide on his ass and dick then smeared him good with Vasoline. Then I untied his feet and let him rest, he went to sleep, then I jabbed a long needle in his belly and he woke up. Then I fed him. From 9 am Sunday until 11 p.m. I whipped - cut and burned his bare ass except at noon and 6 pm when I went out for food. To weaken him and keep him so I gave him food but once a day, I gave him a table spoon and he eat much of his own #2 out of the chamber In a short time, both of us got to like it we called it peanut butter and #1 cider. I let him rest about an hour. Then I bent his legs over his head again and tied his feet. I switched him hard between the cheeks of his fat ass and when the thorns stuck in his flesh, I dragged them so they would tare his ass. How he screamed. Then I spilled alcohol on his bare ass and dickey, then set him on fire. I clapped my hands and jumped with joy when I heard him scream. It hurt like hell while it lasted but the Alcohol burned off quick. I spanked him and switched his bare ass until I was all tired out. I spread paper on the floor and made him lay on his belly. I stripped naked and done a heap of #2 on his ass. Then I turned him on his back so he would be full of it. I had some in my behind and I sat down on his face and made him lick my bare ass clean with his tongue. But when I knew I had him so weak I could master him. Then I let him play Papa. Everything I done to him I made him do to me. He spanked - switched cut and burned my bare ass. He made me jump and yell, when he sunk the thorns in me and then pulled them thru my flash. How I screamed when he set my ass on fire It hurt but I got a big kick, a thrill out of it. Many times when I had him, tied up, I was temped to slice veal cutlets off his nice fat ass. Take them out in the yard. Make a fire and roast them. My mouth fairly watered, to see what it would taste like. I always wanted to eat a boys nice fat ass. I also had a strong desire to cut off his prick and balls. Split them open, roast them and eat them. But I knew if I did that I would not have him to torture or be tortured by him. I pissed and shit all on him in his mouth - eyes - Ears. He did to me . I know we eat over 10 lbs of peanut butter and drank several gallons of cider, between us in the 5 weeks I had him. All things have an end. My job was finished and I could not afford to keep him. Realizing that I must go home. He did not want to put them on , but opened my pants , took out my dick and sucked me off. Then I was tempted I tied him up again, played with his dickey until it got stiff. Then I took the knife and sliced off half of it. I shall never forget his scream, or the look he gave me. The blood gushed in a stream. At first I intended to kill him. Cut up the body and take it home. But the weather was hot and I knew as I had no ice, it would stink and betray me. So I poured cold water over his dickey then slowly poured the rest of the Peroxide on the open wound. Then I took the rest of the Vasoline in a clean handkerchief (Cook and eat entire body) and bound him up. I untied him, put his clothes on the chair by the side of the bed. I gave him $ 10.00, kissed him good bye . Took first train I could get back home. Never heard what become of him, or tried to find out

References

Sourcing

Sourcing for this article is not great, mostly based on popular works that rely on the words of Fish himself. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018

Please add these to External Links, as they are both a song about Fish's murdering of Grace Budd.(The second one contains a quote from Fish's letter to Mrs. Budd.) Steampianist - Secrets of Wysteria Secrets of Wysteria Reversed Kavina2000 (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, please provide reliable sources that demonstrate these songs have achieved notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Just my opinion

This guy was a real jerk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.21.43 (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Albert fish was a really sick person.98.179.133.25 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Alex

As revolting as Fish himself was, there's a paragraph claiming that many of his suffered from "mental illness." Considering the criteria for being diagnosed as having mental illnesses in the 19th Century, is there a possibility that some of his relatives might've been committed unjustly and lived with complications for treatment they didn't deserve? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Explain to the folks back home what a «real jerk» is. Pickelhaube103 (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:American male criminals

Fish belongs in this category. - 108.71.133.201 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Awkwardly Cropped and outdated Mugshot

I have to say that the way Albert Fish's 1903 mugshot is cropped is just weird to look at. I feel that having his face centered in the photo would make it look so much better. Quite ugly to look at honestly. I should also mention, Albert Fish was infamous for being a seemingless defenseless old man who committed horrible crimes, so why is his 1903 mugshot in use anyway? It feels like he is being presented incorrectly. We just need to fix that picture, either update to a later mugshot, or fix the one in use already. MountainJew6150 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to find a copyright free picture of him and upload it. GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)