Talk:Michigan Murders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jane Mixer case has been solved[edit]

This article mentions Jane Mixer, who was murdered during the same period of time as the other murders, though in an adjoining county. Her killer, Gary Leiterman, was arrested in late 2004 and convicted in July 2005. (See http://www.courttv.com/trials/leiterman/072205_verdict_ctv.html .) It is generally believed by those who have studied and written about the murder cases, that John Norman Collins committed all of the other murders. This was definitely the view of people who lived in the area at the time and were privy to evidence that was reported in newspapers regarding the other victims, but which was inadmissable in the Bieneman trial. Incidentally, anyone who edits this article should probably mention that John Norman Collins had his name legally changed while in prison. This was part of a scheme (which failed) to get himself transferred to a Canadian prison at which some Canadian relatives might visit him...and "coincidentally", he would have had a much greater chance of obtaining release from a Canadian prison, than in the States. Publius3 07:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Many questions still remain unanswered, regardless of Gary Leiterman's conviction. Many people still believe that the prosecutor in this case was looking for any kind of match. Many still believe that Gary Leiterman did NOT murder Jane Mixer.

For another look at Gary Leiterman's trial you can go to his website (see http://www.garyisinnocent.org ). Granted, this is a website created by the family. However, the information leaves many still unsure that Gary Leiterman actually did this haneous crime.

The family contends that without the DNA match, the prosecution had no case. The handwriting samples that were said to have matched Gary's don't look like a match to the layman; judge for yourself. [[User:rjlohner], Dec 4 2007

I have expanded the Mixer case section and added a source from CNN News. There was nothing about the conflict in the DNA evidence and the handwriting evidence had been cited as the strongest evidence when it certainly was not. This trial was all about DNA. I certainly don't know if Leiterman's innocent but I do feel that the prosecution is lying about the murderer John Ruelas being at the murder scene when he was only four years old and lived in Detroit forty miles away. The prosecution has to insist he was there because to do otherwise is to admit their evidence was contaminated and this would likely cause all the DNA evidence to be thrown out which would free Leiterman. Regardless of the guilt or innocence, this is a disturbing case especially because the public thinks DNA is the "gold standard" for guilt or innocence.--TL36 (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's really still possible that Mixer may have in fact been murdered by someone else despite the conviction of Leiterman. There was also some very similar aspects to the murder and the other michigan murders. I have a lot of doubts when it comes to Leiterman being the killer, although my doubts aren't really important in this instance, since a doubt isn't a fact, still I like that it's left more open here presenting that there was mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatAdthulhu (talk • contribs) 03:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Article copy edited[edit]

I copy edited the article for punc, style, grammar, etc. It needs a whole lotta help, such as updated info, more sources, more footnotes and clarification. I'd attempt to tackle it myself, but I prefer to copy edit articles rather than write them. momoricks make my day 00:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever reads the Keyes book (referenced in article) could cite facts to page numbers. 97.83.104.146 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Naked mercy match?[edit]

What the heck is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.66.180 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it means a knuckling-under match. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_(game)

Hypercallipygian (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Polygraph[edit]

RE: the polygraph exam: "This test was conducted upon the agreement that the results—whatever they may be—would be unconditionally confidential and inaccessible to usage in court without prior defense counsel agreement." I can't find my copy of the Keyes book at the moment (funny how that always seems to happen), but I know for a fact that in most states (including Michigan), polygraph results are not admissible as evidence under any circumstances - so it's not clear to me why such an agreement would be needed. Statements made during a polygraph can be admissible, under certain circumstances, so maybe that's what he meant. If anyone has a copy of that source handy, please take a look; if not, I'll run across my copy eventually.

Also, BTW, it's not clear from current article content why Collins's mother would be so opposed to the polygraph, or keeping its results confidential, that she fired the defense attorney. Did she object to its being done without her knowledge? Or did she oppose the whole idea of an insanity plea? Or something else? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi DoctorJoeE
Per page 265, 266 & 267: After Collins was rattled by a further identity lineup and Sheriff Harvey informed him, in an attempt to mentally pressure him, that the lineup was in relation to the Kalom murder, and Harvey then proceeded to explain that even if he managed to "wriggle out" of the Beineman case at trial, they had every intention of going after him in either the Schell or Kalom case (psychological pressure). Ryan decided on the following course of action: Submit him to a private polygraph test to help deduce the most effective defense strategy. Collins conceded to it as his mindset, by November 1969, was "What Mr. Ryan thinks is best". The book quotes as follows, in pertinent parts:
Back at his office, Ryan made the arrangements. He informed Prosecutor Delhey that the examination was to be unconditionally confidential, and the results inaccessible to later use by the prosecution until, or if, authorized by defendent or his counsel. Delhey understood; he was intrigued. The next night, Ryan and Sheriff Harvey, flanked by armed deputies, took Collins from the jail... to the county building. On the second floor, Judge Conlin's chamber had been set up for the testing, and the polygraph operator was there. Collins was seated and rigged to the machine. Then all but the operator left the room, and the door was closed. 45 minutes dragged by ... then the door opened and the operator appeared in the hallway. His face was grim. Behind him, they could hear sniffling, rhythmic sobbing... [Ryan entered the chambers alone to talk with the operator]. After another half hour, Ryan emerged. Collins came out behind him, head bowed... Ryan said very quietly: "All right gentlemen, the experiment is over; you may take my client back now." Sheriff Harvey stared at him, "Did you get what you wanted?" "The lawyer returned a steady gaze: "What we 'got' is nobody's business but ours. As far as you or anybody else is concerned, it never happened. And," he added pointedly, "there'll be no statements!"
John's mother was shocked and bitterly indignant to learn of the secret polygraph test of her son. Whose side was Ryan on? He [Ryan] summarized the tentative conclusions from the examination, and said it might be wise in the circumstances to consider a change in [Collins'] planned defense. If they could show he had not been in full control of his senses. ... Three weeks later, Ryan was off the case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Aha. Thanks, Kieronoldham. So there was no question of the polygraph results being admissible -- Ryan just didn't want them to be discoverable by the prosecutors, which makes sense. And Collins' mother was incensed that Ryan was more interested in getting to the truth than in defending her son unconditionally, and proposed entering an insanity plea rather than fighting the charges head-on, which he had decided (rightly, it turned out) would be an unwinnable strategy. (Reminiscent of Ted Bundy, who fired any attorney who dared suggest that he might be in any way mentally impaired.) If I can find time, I'll try to make that a little clearer in the article, if you have no objection. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Be my guest. Best regards. :)--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, it appears that there are some ownership issues here; bit by bit, you have undone virtually all of my changes -- so now we are back to the original problem of superfluous details and lack of clarity. When you enumerate every single detail of every court proceeding, the text gets bogged down. I also attempted to fix inaccuracies, e.g. the cited source (which you quoted to me verbatim) says nothing about the prosecutor's "full knowledge and cooperation" -- he was informed, and he agreed to the stipulation that the results remain off the record. I also tried to clarify why Ryan was fired (my original goal), and you even took that out. Frankly, I'm not sufficiently interested in this article to argue over it -- but if our mutual goal is to improve the article, as it should be, I do wish you would at least initiate a discussion before undoing any more edits, when and if I try again.Thanks. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel so; you improved the structure and quite rightly so, DoctotJoeE (not least removing several instances of meandering word structure). I certainly don't feel I or anyone "own" any article. Basically I noted yesterday your edit falsely indicated Collins' mother was present at the polygraph. Today I was working toward avoiding two paragraphs beginning with "At a". --Kieronoldham (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page; I appreciate your reconsideration. Once again, for the record, I wrote that Collins' mother was present at the family conference following the confidential polygraph exam, as stated in the source I cited, not at the exam itself. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No worries - just a simple misunderstanding sourcing from my misplacing my monocle and misreading that sentence. All rectified. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

An article desperately in need of a table[edit]

  • Although well-researched and thorough, this lengthy article would certainly benefit from a list of the victims. I would imagine that at some point in the past, there probably was such a table and that it was removed by a well-meaning editor who thought that he or she was making an improvement. At some point, I'll check to see if there is one hidden in the history. Mandsford 16:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move to Michigan Murders. (non-admin closure) KSFT (t|c) 04:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


Michigan murders → Michigan serial murders of 1967–1969 – or Murders by John Norman Collins. The current title sounds like the article is about the general phenomenon of murders occurring in Michigan. Instead, it is about one particular series of seven killings of 1967–1969, apparently committed by John Norman Collins. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Number 57 14:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - We need to look at what the WP:COMMONNAME is. Looking through the GNews and GBooks references for a search for "John Norman Collins" I see him sometimes referred to as "The Ypsilanti Ripper", sometimes as the "Co-Ed killer", but "The Michigan Murders" and "The Michigan Murderer" seems to be used fairly regularly. Apparently this is the result of the Edward Keyes book of the same title. However "Michigan Murders" (without "the") does risk being confusing as User:BarrelProof points out - so why not just add the definite article and make it "The Michigan Murders"? Adding "The" clarifies that this is not an article about homicide in the state of Michigan. It's also clear, concise per WP:CRITERIA. EDIT: User:SelfieCity's suggestion is even more concise and has my support. FOARP (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • What about Michigan Murders, as it was a specific event? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I like this suggestion. A search of Google News and Google Scholar show that RS overwhelmingly capitalize the term in running text, when referring to this specific episode. (e.g. from NYT: "the perpetrator of what became known as the Michigan Murders") Colin M (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally I believe the current article header suffices. All the names by which this series of murders are known are listed in the infobox and first few paragraphs, as is the time frame of these crimes. Despite clear physical and circumstantial evidence, he is only the alleged perpetrator of all the murders except Karen Beineman, so referencing Collins' name in any new article title would be inappropriate in my opinion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, the current article name certainly does not suffice, with "murders" in lowercase. I think "Michigan Murders" would be an improvement, but might not be the best option. Personally, I think a descriptive title rather than some cutesy media-driven nickname might be fine. I somewhat doubt that adding "The" would be desirable, per WP:THE – I don't think anyone would capitalize the "The" in running text (e.g., "It wasn't until The Michigan Murders that serial killing was considered as a possibility in Ypsilanti." – no one would capitalize "The".) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Okays. I'd agree there. "Michigan Murders" would indeed be an improvement. A sufficient outline of the crimes is in the first few paragraphs. The Wiki. Hillside Strangler article is not named The Hillside Strangler murders of 1977 - 1978.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support either per WP:PRECISION. Weak preference for Murders by John Norman Collins per naturalness and conciseness. Current title can easily be misunderstood as relating to an article on murders in Michigan more generally. Alt-capitalization does not help. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Matches the scope of the article, unlike the current title. Prefer the proposed, Michigan serial murders of 1967–1969 over Murders by John Norman Collins for reasons: (1) Don't glamorize the criminal by advertising their name; (2) some name variability; (3) early sources did not know the name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISION. I did a search for "Michigan murders" at books.google.com and this topic came up first. It's clearly the common name and the most likely term to be used by anyone searching for this topic; the proposed titles are not. We don't have another topic on WP to which "Michigan murders" might reasonably apply. --В²C ☎ 23:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

sorting/listas[edit]

Currently, the talk page has the listas parameter in the WP Bio tag listed under Collins, John Norman; however, the article title is Michigan Murders; shouldn't the listas align with the article title? Thank you. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michigan_Murders&oldid=952683517"