Talk:Watts family murders

Infobox discrepancy

The Infobox states that Watts received five life sentences. The article's lead states four life sentences. Which is correct? I believe the four is correct. But I am not 100% sure. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

YouTube video makes it clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZPt3uvJZAU (skip to 41:20) This is exactly correct: "Watts pleaded guilty on November 6, 2018, to multiple counts of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to four life sentences without the possibility of parole, three to be served consecutively and two to be served concurrently." Tiptopper (talk)

OK. Thanks! I made some changes to the article, based on this. There were several instances in which the article stated "five life sentences"; I changed them all to "four". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Why? It is obviously five. Three dead people. Additional counts for the two minors that trusted him. Five sentences. Of which: Four without possibility of parole, three consecutive, two concurrent. Anyway, he is never getting out, no matter how many times he claims to have found Jesus. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:6CF3:6B77:D126:134F (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but what is 'clear' about "He was sentenced to four life sentences without the possibility of parole, three to be served consecutively and two to be served concurrently", i.e. 4 = 3 + 2? I didn't understand from the article and I am not much the wiser from the the talk page. If there is, as there seems to be, a law by which someone can receive two life sentences for the same murder, this is extremely counterintertuitive and thus needs to be explained very explicitly. The death of the unborn child confounds the whole situation, since that is mentioned in the same place as what I am taking to be the reason for the double life sentences. It's really, really unclear what crime led to what sentence. It needs to be obvious to the reader, not that they can just about work it out from the talk page.

This is the especially confusing sentence, in the 'Arrest and charges' section: "On August 21, Watts was charged with five counts of first-degree murder, including an additional one count per child cited as "death of a child who had not yet attained 12 years of age and the defendant was in a position of trust", unlawful termination of a pregnancy and three counts of tampering with a deceased human body." The "including" and the text following is the crux of it. It makes it sound as though the unlawful termination is one of the things included in the counts of murder. And further to what I said in the previous paragraph, it's especially confusing how it was five counts of murder, not just five life sentences for three counts of murder. I just can't understand how that can possibly be the law as one person cannot be murdered twice, but the point isn't that I am (very) sceptical it's true -- it is that it is so strange and difficult to grasp that it really needs to be laid out clearly. Salopian (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Strange voices in K-9 search video

Has anyone else heard of strange voices showing up on the official police k-9/forensic videos of the Watts' home after the murders but before the confession? I'm seeing news articles (1, 2) and at least one video (3) cropping up about it. Of course, its probably nonsense, but there appears to have been noted in the documentary of the murders. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I've read about this case, and I've heard about the voices in the K9 police search video. I wouldn't include this in the article because all the talk about these paranormal events seems unimportant. CountyCountry (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there sources for it? Yes. Are they verifiable? Yes. Are the reportings of the recordings neutral? Again, yes. I think it bears noting, especially since it isn't a regular instance noted during the forensic videos of other crime scenes. Its unusual, and notable. Do we speculate as to the nature of the sounds? No. Do we use the explanations as provided in the sources? Of course.

Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with including it if many reliable sources have covered the paranormal part of this topic. I used Google and found many sources talking about possible paranormal activity in the house, but I'm unsure about their reliability. One of the sources that you used, Daily Mail, is considered unreliable on Wikipedia according to WP:DAILYMAIL. CountyCountry (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That's always going to be the issue with this sort fo subject matter. The reputable sources might be able to verify their story, but don't want to look foolish reporting on it, and the ones who have no scruples whatsoever (like the Daily Mail) are not and should not be taken seriously. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chickenramen2112 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lylamarasco.

— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Improvment

i have attempted to improve this article by adding in information in the "arrest and charges" section, i added into the second paragraph from the words "the girls were placed" and so on. I also created my own section, titled "chris watts today", containing information on what chris is doing with his life today in prison. i included information from reliable sources, and feel that i have contributed enough information, without fully changing anything or without stating the overall gruesome facts of this case. Chickenramen2112 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Watts' mistress' mention

I didn't name her in the subsection in case we finally decide to keep her name out of the article. I personally think that - because her name s a matter of public record, she should remain in the article, but I'm of two minds on this subject. It has been consistently reported that she had nothing to do with the crimes Watts' committed, and in fact was instrumental in uncovering the truth and timeline of the murders. Add to that the level of hate she has unjustly received for being Watts' excuse for the annihilation of his entire family, leading to her living under witness protection and seeking to change her name, and this creates a moral quandary - for me at least. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Jack Sebastian, I'd argue that she's WP:NPF. Yes, her name was widely reported, but IMO non-notable people have a right to be forgotten per WP:BLPNAME. I think it's also very important that her name adds nothing for the reader in understanding the article subject. Her name doesn't tell us anything about the murder. It doesn't tell us anything about the motive for the murder. Including her name does nothing more than force her to remain searchable here on Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with that assertion, were it not for the multiple news items that keep popping up about her, which would seem to invalidate the NPF argument. Whether she wants to be or not, she is indeed a public figure (my personal feelings aside). I think something similar was decided about accused Olypic Park Bomber Richard Jewell. Both Jewell and the young woman have in common that they inextricably linked with the public event.

Additionally, I think the woman in question is changing/has already changed her name, to forego further public scrutiny; she is choosing to 'disappear' on her own.

If you think we at loggerheads here, we should perhaps widen the circle via RfC or the AN:BLP; I'm sure we could get some quality feedback from them. If you choose to follow this path, just post the link to that discussion in this subsection, so I can monitor it as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, but @Jack Sebastian: what does her name add to the reader's understanding of the subject? That's the point of WP. What does it possibly add to know what her name is? I feel like we ought to always err on the side of protecting living people from harm unless there's some very good reason. Valereee (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

She's part of the event, the reporting of the event, the investigation of the event, the trial of the event and there is a lot of reporting on her specifically after the event. I agree with you regarding privacy, but for me, she could have easily, quietly changed her name and gone on with her life. She apparently chose to talk to reporters about the negative impact the murders have had on her life, etc. This is why we note the family of a president like trump's kids and not of Obama's. The former gave interviews, were part of significant newsworthy events. Th latter were just kids who happened to have a parent who was president. This is just another example of what I am trying to say - I am thinking that she is in fact part of the story/event. I get that you disagree, which is why I suggested that we widen the circle on this discussion to either RfC or AN-BLP. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, pinged you to a section at BLPN. Valereee (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Here via BLPN, and I definitely see both sides of this debate, but I definitely fall on Valereee's side: though the name has been widely reported, the article really loses nothing by leaving it out. By putting it in, we associate this person (name change or not) with things she voluntarily did but also some awful things with which she was not directly associated. I don't think it would be a BLP violation to include the name, and if consensus falls that way, so be it, but I think it sound editorial discretion here to leave it out. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's possible that, if someone were to take the high quality sources available and write a proper full article on this subject, she would be mentioned multiple times. She is part of this story. However, the article in its current state only mentions her once. So in that sense, I think omitting her name is fine for now, though I would not oppose re-introducing her name if the article demands it. I don't subscribe to the belief that we are putting her in danger by mentioning her name, or preventing harm by omitting it. A search for "(her first name) (her last name) Watts" returns 57,600 results from standard Google Search, and 1,850 results from Google News. She is (allegedly and probably) in the Witness Protection Program. My point is, it's too late, that name is already tarnished. Omit for the sake of good writing practices, not for some type of salvation. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 03:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So per the discussion at BLPN and here, I think we've got consensus to remove unless something changes to make the inclusion of her name necessary? Valereee (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Er, let's not get ahead of ourselves, Valereee; discussion is ongoing there. I get that you want the choice you want, but a consensus isn't present yet; we aren't just solving this problem - we are solving problems like this that pop up. There Is No Hurry. Wait until the widened circle populates with opinion, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it's fine to wait until the discussion peters out, but there's clearly no consensus to include at this point, which means until there is, particularly in the case of a possible BLPvio, we leave it out. Valereee (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's not how that works. First, there is absolutely no proof that this constitutes a BLPvio; others have already discounted this assertion. Secondly, you are the one who offered a Bold edit, which was Reverted; now we Discuss until the matter is concluded an a consensus emerges. It is the hallmark of WP:BRD. You need to slow down, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect Jack, it strikes me that there is a pretty clear emerging consensus. Combine that with WP:ONUS, and I think removal for the time being is the correct action. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you've reverted my removal. I'm going to revert, claiming exemption from 3RR for potential BLP vio. WP:ONUS is on editor wanting to include. Valereee (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Consensus at BLPN not to mention. Valereee (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)