Talk:Henry Lee Lucas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Various edits

Question: I remember reading in the Corpus Cristi newspaper at the time that Lucas and a woman he was with had shot a young girl in the back at a convenience store in Rockport texas. That was how he was captured. Can this be verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.131.32.179 (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What about his connection to MKULTRA???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.236.131 (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What in the Hell is that? QueenofBattle (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Otis Toole died in September 1996 from failure."- I assume this was intended to be heart failure, and I corrected it as such, but I'm not 100% positive this is correct. --L33tminion 19:38, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous unregistered user pretty drastically changed this article from serial killing to a guy most likely wrongly convicted for serial killing. The text was greatly expanded and listed only one source. Anyone care to check to make sure that 1) the new info is accurate, 2) that the new twist isn't too POV, and 3) that the added material isn't a copyright violation of the cited book by Shelladay? DreamGuy 04:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

14 December I've reverted this page to an earlier version for the reasons given above, that the new version was a complete revision of the whole article based solely on a single resource (despite plenty of others being available.) There were indeed a great deal of discrepencies with Lucas's confessions and no-one doubts that he lied a great deal to police, potentially even with the authorities feeding him information. However, there is equally little doubt that he did commit more than just the the one homicide (that of his mother) such as the final two where he lead detectives to the remains of two people just listed as missing.

Significantly, Lucas started confessing to crimes that he didn't commit when authorities and the media were hyping him up as a serial killer, and similarly he only started retracting all of his confessions after people started accusing him of lying. He was a pathological liar, and just as he exaggerated his claims of guilt, he exaggerated his pleas of innocence, to suit the authorities and media (also, in the first sentence of the revised version it made a big deal of Lucas claiming that he wasn't a serial killer, as if denying being a serial killer was proof that he was innocent of such a charge.)

Like I said, Lucas confessed to a huge amount of murders that few could claim he was truly guilty of, so it would be good for the info provided in the previous version could be blended into the current one. There were some good points made. I just felt it was far to biased in that it was not from a NPOV (evidence proving Lucas's guilt in some cases was ignored) and it relied solely on one resource.

Why was his sentence commuted?

why was his sentence commuted? Message me if you know Sp0 (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New article

This new version of the article is superb. It contains the various opinions with regards to Lucas's confessions and whether they are true or not, with plenty of sources. I wish I could write articles as neat as this. Nice work. Robert Mercer 21:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LGBT?

Why is this article included in the category of LGBT serial killers? Lucas doesn't seem to have been in any of the groups covered by those initials. Am I missing something?Benami 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I just removed the category. Unless there's any verifiable evidence that he actually was LGBT then the category should not be applied. Blackcats 10:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Judging by plenty of books on the subject, he and Toole were lovers. I don't know if this qualifies him for the category, but it's been mentioned quite a bit. Famous Mortimer 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

His NNDB page states: orientation bisexual, slept with Ottis Toole. Whilst Wikipedia don't consider NNDB reliable, it is further evidence of the often stated/portrayed homosexual relationship between Lucas and Toole. Toole was definitely homosexual, and they spent a great deal of time together. Would a heterosexual man chose to have spent so much of his life in the company of a homosexual man whom he knew to be an extremely violent sadist? Werdnawerdna (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the above statement, I know I wouldn't hang around with a homosexual psycho, but then again I am normal and obviously Lucas was not. I think that while his sexuality is worth mentioning I do not belive there is enough reliable information to support classifying Lucas as a LGBT. tvann00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.53.3.4 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Two cases?

The article states twice that Phil Ryan believed two of the confessions, yet the cases are never explained. What was the evidence in those cases? AxelBoldt 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranger Ryan generally believes Lucas in two cases where Lucas lead Ryan and others to the remains of two bodies, those of Lucas' 15-year-old traveling companion, Becky Powell, and Kate Rich, an elderly Montague County woman who took them into her home. 76.187.17.173 02:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Large sections of this article - most of it in fact - are word for word copies of the Brad Shellady article in Everything You Know is Wrong. I don't know if what the copyright issues here are, but even if there are none it is probably undesirable to have the entire article rely on (actually, be) a single source.radek (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

as you do not specify, I assume the unsourced bio sections at the beginning and have removed them. Could you help us further? DGG (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no, it's actually pretty much the whole article, minus a few words or sentences. Basically anything sourced to Shellady is taken verbatim from that article. Even sentences which are cited to other sources are essentially a sentence or a paragraph from Shellady (again almost word for word) with a few extra words added that are being sourced to other references.

For example, take the following paragraph:

Lucas' claims gradually became criticized as outlandish and less likely: He claimed to have been part of a cannibalistic, satanic cult called "The Hand of Death",[12] to have taken part in snuff films, to have killed Jimmy Hoffa, and to have delivered poison to cult leader Jim Jones in Jonestown prior to the notorious mass murder/suicide of Jones's group."

The only part that is not straight verbatim from Shellady is "called "The Hand of Death"", which is what is referenced. You take those four words out of the paragraph and you have exactly what's in Everything You Know Is Wrong.

This is why I initially nominated this for deletion - it's 90% plagiarism, not just the unsourced stuff in the intro.radek (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not quite sure what the appropriate action to take in a case like this is. Basically, the whole article is a word for word copy of the one in "Everything You Know Is Wrong". It's actually been noted above in discussion. While I think that that particular source is reliable and all that, there's no reason for Wiki to duplicate it, again, word for word. I guess there was some old version of this article at one point which was quite different until some user replaced it with the EYKIS version, though I haven't been watching this page for that long. Obviously deleting this whole page would be unwarranted since it's a very notable subject matter. But a straight up copy of ONE particular article, plagiarizing it and all, is not good to have either. Comments on how to deal with this are much appreciated.radek (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the article is not the right approach, as you recognize. Much of the article (i.e., that not based on Shellady's accounts) appears to be sourced properly, relevant, and edited to a NPOV. So, perhaps there is a re-write in order for some of the sections? Newguy34 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that the 12-14 reversion (see above) presumably corrected these issues. Bustter (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Can the neutrality tag be removed? It has been there since October. Newguy34 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Romantic affair"

"and had a romantic affair with Toole's 12-year-old niece, Frieda Powell" - Should sex with a 12 year old really be described as a "romantic affair"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.66.240 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

An alcoholic father with no legs collapsing and freezing in a blizzard

This is non-sequitar:

"His father, Anderson Lucas, was an alcoholic and former railroad employee who had lost his legs after being hit by a freight train. He would usually come home inebriated, and would suffer from Viola's wrath as often as his sons."/"In December 1949, Anderson Lucas died of hypothermia, after going home drunk and collapsing outside during a blizzard."

A bit-more information/clarification would be helpful, if any more information on this is available. ErezerOfLuvin (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I got from Michael Newton's "Encyclopedia of Serial Killers", p. 142 : Viola Lucas ran her family with an iron hand, while husband Anderson - dubbed "No Legs" after his drunken encounter with a freight train - dragged himself around the house and tried to drown his personal humiliation in a nonstop flow of liquor. (...) Both Anderson and Henry were the targets of her violent outbursts, man and boy alike enduring wicked beatings, forced to witness the parade of strangers who shared Viola's bed. Sickened by one such episode, Anderson Lucas dragged himself outside to spend a night in the snow, then contracting a fatal case of pneumonia zubrowka74 02:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

I found that Anderson Lucas died on October 24th, 1951 due to pneumonia. (death certificate with state file No. 23241 of the Commonwealth of Virginia, link: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C958-Y9X1-3?i=66; you have to be registered) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:13E5:1200:11A7:B866:ADAE:B095 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mug shot

This seems to be a slang term. Perhaps this coudl be changed to 'Police Photograph'? Jamesthecat (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

whether "slang" or not it is the common usage, so much so that the article police photograph doesnt even exist and booking photograph redirects back to the slang term. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Frieda Powell

I put back this part "and had a sexual relationship with Toole's 12-year-old niece, Frieda Powell, who had escaped from a juvenile detention facility" that TheRedPenOfDoom removed, stating it was an "unsourced claim". It is sourced by the first reference in the references section.

It was in none of the reliable source references that I read. WP:BURDEN states that you must provide a reliable in line citation for each challenged claim and not simply some hand wave "i read it on the web somewhere once." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Unfortunately, I have had to add a neutrality and accuracy tag after heavy editing by a particular user to remove reliable sourcing and substantially edit text to apparently push a particular POV. I'm not sure if at this point the article can be saved. Please help, if you can. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You have taken out what seem to be very good and reliable sources. I think you are supposed to explain how they were not good sources before doing that. Also how is the article misrepresenting the referenced sources now. Most sources say he killed his mother Rich and Powell. The others claims he made were considered highly dubious by an official report, the Texas attorney general and the governor commuted his death sentence for that reason. I think you need to look at Biography channel HENRY LEE LUCAS BIOGRAPHY, http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/henry-lee-lucas.html, and the Henry Lee Lucas ; The Confession Killer (Documentary). I have toned the lede and rest down and if you think it is not rock solid NPOV with reliable sources now please explain exactly where and how it goes wrong.Overagainst (talk)

I haven't taken anything out of the article. This action only added the tags. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added back some of the information on differing opinions and Lucas Report controversy as it comes from a reliable source. Prior to this edit, the article painted a picture that was not consistent with the cited material. Properly cited material should generally never be removed from an article. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Properly cited material can be given inappropriate weight. I think it would be better for the infobox to say murder convictions instead of 'killings' or victims. In his case his murder convictions were considerably greater than proven killings. As indicated in the lede he may have done far more than his convictions, but that is very uncertain.Overagainst (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with "murder convictions" as opposed to "killings". He could have done far more, but it's more likely that he did far less. And BTW, "properly cited material" that is inaccurate or WP:UNDUE can (and usually should) be taken down at any time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with either, so long as the information is verifiable. And, to dance on the head of a pin, I agree that undue weight makes info a candidate for removal (or other editing), but Wikipedia is about verifiability not necessarily accuracy. The later being subjective in many cases, and different than "fictional". QueenofBattle (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the mentions of Ryan are proper weight " A 1985, a Dallas Times Herald article documented that Lucas had been out of the state and at times in jail when many of the murders were committed.". No one stood up to be counted until the newspaper came out with that story. if anyone gets named in the article as exposing Lucas it ought to be reporter for the Dallas Times Herald, Hugh Aynesworth, who already has his own article. " Aynesworth documented the hoax in painstaking detail. It was not just alleged that Lucas pulled off monumental fraud; it was proven conclusively. The investigation of Lucas’ life from 1975 to 1985 was perhaps the most thorough and productive ever undertaken by a daily newspaper." D-magazines The two faces of Heny Lee Lucas: "But in 1985, a Dallas Times Herald article documented that Lucas had been out of the state and at times in jail when many of the murders were committed. McLennan County district attorney Vic Feazell, spurred by these revelations and two questionable confessions in his home county, brought Lucas before a grand jury, where the drifter admitted that he had taken the Rangers for a ride. Rather than own up to their mistakes, the Rangers continued to insist that Lucas was a mass murderer, even as they sought to distance themselves from some of his confessions." The Twilight of the Texas Rangers. Ryan had nothing to do with the exposing the hoax it was Aynesworth's articles.Overagainst (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all consistent with the reliable sources, and frankly represents a single POV, yours. Texas Rangers are not all one body, but rather a collection of individuals. The fact of the matter is that while some Rangers got caught up in the lies of Lucas, Ryan was not one of them. He maintained from the beginning that he had his doubts. See page 9 of 27 in Ryan's sworn testimony before a grand jury at http://www.vicfeazell.com/html/1264%201290%20%20Testimony%20Of%20Phil%20Ryan.pdf To remove the information, which is long standing in the article, places undue weight to the argument (yet unproven) that Lucas was on one side of a intentional hoax and all the Rangers were on the other side. Of course a member of law enforcement can't comment on a blow-by-blow basis on an ongoing investigation. The info is properly sourced, verifiable, and NPOV. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll refrain from taking sides here, but returning to the pinhead dancing thing -- the slogan, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." is widely misinterpreted. It is NOT intended as a license to strive for the former at the expense of the latter. The actual threshold is verifiability AND truth; the point is that it's not sufficient for content to be true, a source must be cited verifying that it's true. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, the question of mutual inclusion and mutual exclusion vis-a-vis reliable sourcing is a tricky one, with which we must proceed thoughtfully. If an editor believed something to be untrue, but there were several sources that attributed the assertion to another, any editor would be well within guidelines to include it in an article (assuming it met other requirements) so long as it was attributed to the person asserting it. I have proceeded over many years editing on Wikipedia under the realization that we are not a court where truth or lies are sorted out. We are a bunch of amateur editors of an encyclopedic website. One man's truth is another's lie. Or, so the saying goes something like that... QueenofBattle (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Queen, your ref 17 Lawrence Journal-World - Oct 16, 1983 (not Houston Chronicle) makes it clear that Ryan thought Lucas's confessions checked out in over 20 murders. While Ryan said in that 1983 article that Lucas's confessions were sometimes false, Ryan didn't say that only two confessions were good. At the time of that article quoting 'Ranger Phil Ryan' about the confessions he had heard Lucas make, Ryan was clearly saying the confessions to over twenty eight murders had been investigated and found to be genuine. So Ryan is on record as having said in 1983 that dozens of the murder confessions that he heard from Lucas were not false. It was Aynesworth's articles that came first; then DA Vic Feazell put Lucas in front of a grand jury, where said that he had been given the Orange Socks case file to read before his confession. The article maybe should make it clear that Lucas had a terrible record and that he started off with a confession to a murder he was strongly suspected of and genuinely committed. Ryan caught him, but he also got fooled by him (maybe revenge on Lucas's part). Local sheriffs motivated to clear crimes were a big part of why so many murders were attributed to Lucas, that maybe ought to be mentioned. My edits do say that the Texas Ranger Lucas task force allowed a huge number of crimes to be attributed to him but several reliable sources say that. The Unresolved Suspicions section mentions two separate occasions where local Texas Rangers (who were not part of the Lucas task force ) with specific unsolved crimes in their area that Lucas had confessed to said he knew the way to the crime scene, as if he had been there before.-Overagainst (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Banana

Is it possible to beat someone to death with a banana? Or is that a bit of vandalism that's been missed or reverted to? Peridon (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hard to visualise, isn't it. Not sure, but it is possible to beat a man insensible with a strawberry, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the quote back to a version from earlier which has a knife in his hand. This is found widely online, but I'd like a more reliable source than most I've seen. The banana came in during a spell of repeated vandalism, and seems to have escaped reversion. Peridon (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the banana version sounded slightly more convincing. But good spot. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've also got rid of that url that was floating at the bottom of this page. It had ref tags round it in the text it belonged to, which dropped the link down to here. Peridon (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The banana beating is vandalislm, please remove the whole "banana" section. They don't need help to get some new trolling ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:CC5B:3CEF:3CCA:A6C (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Article issues

The early life section has a "needs additional citations" tag. As a B-class article this means the issue needs resolving or a class reassessment per B-Class criteria #1. Otr500 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Or it just means the tag needs removing; every sentence/paragraph is sourced. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That is true and on a revisit (looking at the particular references) I would have probably removed the tag as an unnecessary career tag so thanks. Otr500 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)