Jump to content

Talk:John Wayne Gacy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Houston Mass Murders

Though it mentions it with the board, shouldn't it mention that he got the 'handcuff trick' from Dean Corll? Cake (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi. Page 197 in the reference harks to an Officer Tovar asking Gacy where he got the idea for the board, Gacy replied that it was from the HMM. The reference doesn't specifically state the handcuff trick. Here is an online article from the trial harking only towards the restraining board, but not the actual 'handcuff trick', as sourcing from the HMM.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello there. Yes, I know the reference pertains only to the board, and it is what Gacy said specifically. However, anyone familiar with the HMM sees much more which Gacy picked up from Corll, which the article could address as well. Gacy's "handcuff trick" - a key in the backpocket, was copied from Corll and Henley who practiced the trick often. See for example here or here or here. There's also the route of possible accomplices and so forth (Cram and Rossi as Gacy's Henley and Brooks? “Gacy was a copycat,” Stephenson told the newspaper. “And he was copycatting a killer who used accomplices.”) for those interested in Gacy making the HMM ever more relevant. Only mentioning it with the board separated from other aspects of the article leaves some information wanting in my opinion. It seems a throwaway comment about one aspect of the murders when instead Gacy was very likely something of a student of Corll if not an outright copycat. Hell, the board was different (Gacy had like a 2 by 4 with 2 cuffs, one on each end; Corll's was a plank with 4 cuffs, one at each corner), while the handcuff trick was exactly the same, and is so notorious it has its own section. In fact, I would be interested if a source has a date of publication or even better a date of purchase for the book Gacy had on Corll. I'd bet it's between some big shifts in behavior - say between the first murder and that of Butkovitch. "He did a lot of research on it." Cake (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't find a reference for the actual handcuff trick, although I know I have read it somewhere. The link you newly added doesn't specify the "handcuff trick" either. Perhaps a brief mention of it in the article if a/the reference can be found would be apt, but really I personally don't think it should be in detail both because of the length of the article already and the fact links between the Gacy and Corll articles exist on each Wikipedia article. Also, both articles mention that Gacy was influenced by what he had read about the HMM.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what you say about the misleading text implying that it was solely the restraining board being what influenced the overall MO with his victims. As I say I can't find/recall the actual reference for the handcuffs. If I do I'll add it.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Length of article

This article is almost twice as long as the one on Richard Wagner. Anyone bothered about that at all? Anyone? 46.109.214.139 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, not particularly as long as it gets no longer. It's well-referenced and (to me) holds very little or no impertinent information. Then again, I could be somewhat biased on the issue of the length of the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to discuss

Currently, the redirect Choked with a board redirects to here. Is this a unique act of Gacy's or have other people also done this? - A window cleaner me (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a bizarre redirect. Suppose it depends on how you interpret the words themselves. He strangled with a hammer handle and rope, choked via thrusting cloth or paper rags deep into the trachea. He restrained the victims occasionally in a pillory-like devices. None of the actual murder or torture methods are unique to Gacy's case with the possible exception of his torture "trick" he termed "horsey" where he half strangled the victims with a rope he referred to as his "reins" as he sat on their backs.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. Well, perhaps the best thing to do is to delete the redirect. It has gotten 15 views in the past month. People are probably looking to see who has done this. - A window cleaner me (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Was it a hammer handle? For some reason I seem to recall it depicted as something flatter, maybe even a bit longer than you'd expect a hammer. Like, well, a board. That said "choked with a board" brings to mind the same thing as "choked with a blow from a flashlight" rather than strangulation with a garrot, which is hardly original. Cake (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Unanswered questions?

The article seems to leave some questions unanswered - perhaps because they never will be, but here goes: i) Did Gacy ever explain why he spared Donnelly and Rignall? Clearly, their later witness evidence was damning. ii) Given his experiences, why did Cram later work with Gacy, albeit sporadically? iii) Was there any official review into the police handling of the offences relating to Gacy; for example, into why they so readily believed him rather than Donnelly or failed to notice the pattern of disappearances with connections to PDM Contractors? JezGrove (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

On i), I don't know what Gacy said, but Rignall promised he would tell nobody, and Donnelly told a sadist to kill him. It seems reasonable to me that Gacy let Donnelly live because Donnelly let him know he wanted to die. Another possibility is Gacy killed the ones he found most attractive, and Rignall had the tan but wasn't a shaggy blond, say. Donnelly also was quite resilient. Think he was strangled into unconsciousness five times.
I am most interested in how the unidentified have been handled. If it were up to me, I'd go through all the Maine West and Nicholas Senn yearbooks to see if I find any missing boys. In fact, it seems like the obvious thing to do, such that if it has been done I would be interested to read the results. Cake (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
User:JezGrove if you read enough about this case you'll know it still contains innuendo. To give one example, in the book Killer Clown, while under increasing surveillance, Gacy was overheard talking in hushed tones with Cram and Rossi (referred to in the book as Walsh and Gray) in a bar discussing his surveillance re: Piest's disappearance and his two employees asked him: "And what? Buried like the other five?" Read toward the end of the article for his whereabouts at the time of known victims' disappearances.

In response to the first question, this case will always have unanswered questions as following his initial brief confession to Hachmeister et al he began to implement his (feeble but exhaustive) efforts to convince his alter ego committed the murders. In otherwords, until his death he was largely secretive about his crimes (a common trait with serial killers holding "ace cards" in their minds). I think because he was running out of space in the crawl space and was pondering storing victims in the attic that is why he spared Donnelly then Rignall, before deciding to use the Des Plains River to dispose of the last five victims' bodies. Second point, those are Cram's claims. Only he knows but Cram held a senior position with PDM (later subcontracted by Gacy on a regular basis). Gacy said he engaged in sex with him and, even more so, Rossi. ("A guy can earn a lot more than $5 an hour if he scratches my back" was a statement Gacy made in the late 70s.) Point three, as far as I am aware, initially they didn't look too deeply into his claims at the time.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see Kieron come and give the much better answer. It seems Gacy's defense attorneys are convinced that Cram and Rossi thought Gacy was some kind of mafia hitman. I wonder whether investigators believe all the murders happened in the house, or just the burial. Cake (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sortable Wikitable

Is the recently-added sortable Wikitable in the 'victims' section appropriate? I don't see the need to have this info. presented in a table as not only does it elongate the article (almost intrusively given the overall structure) as opposed to the basic and condensed previous display format, but there is nothing really to be gained in presenting the information in this format. What is there to 'sort' in this table, given the previous method of chronological order of murders from a serial murderer targeting exclusively one section of society? --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

After adding the body numbers, I thought about making it a table. One has to keep the numbers straight between order of death and order of being found. Both seem relevant to finding possible connections with the unidentified like with Szyc and Godzik, Reffett and Stapleton, etc. Cake (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
This is how the article looked with their inclusion. I don't know what others will think and obv. consensus governs, but if you look at graphs etc. of the burial locations, there was little continuation in the sequential burial pattern beyond those killed between June and August of 1976 (three unidentified) and December 76 to March 77. I'll add that researchers originally thought with a "medium to high" possibility the victim identified as William Bundy had been killed between July and September 1977.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
For the identified, it seems pretty useful to have a sortable table. For one, there are the numbers in the sense of order of victim and the numbers in the sense of the order of discovery. You would know better than I, but keeping those straight seem like where to start with the unidentified - for whom, I admit, that table is unwieldy. Also, apparently Mowry gets called both body 20 and body 13. If you know how, would you check that for me? Cake (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You're referring to a documentary there mate which says "Body number 13 is Johnny Mowery" (or words to that effect)? Mowery was the 20th victim unearthed. The 13th victim unearthed is unidentified. Hair "very dark, almost black in color" aged 19-21. 3rd from right in this image. I'd have been castigated by other editors if I even attempted to add (certainly repeatedly) erroneous info. here. Mowery was #20; #13 is unidentified but with all info. either in books or public on the Internet very likely to have been killed between Aug. and Oct. of 1976.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I am, and a hope that Mowery wasn't the horrific picture of body 20. Cake (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A victim's face?

Multiple people have asked and I am curious myself - and if anybody knows it's Kieron. Who is this guy after Reffett and before Nelson. Looks a little like Bonnin, but older and they show Bonnin after. Hair is too light to be Landingin. Is it from some other case? Cake (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's Matthew Bowman if yous must know (no callous indifference intended). Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, as I tried to convince Kieron before that without the Houston Mass Murders, there'd be no handcuff trick, see "Long before John Wayne Gacey (sic), Wayne Henley used the handcuff trick by putting on a pair while keeping a key in his back pocket.". Still long to know when Gacy read about Corll et al, and whether it was before he murdered Butkovitch. Cake (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
One other thing. The article says Genty found an arm bone - for some reason I thought it was the knee cap and leg bone. Cake (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The HMM he's likely to have read about in '73 and '74 - extensive publicity in the Chicago Tribune. The accomplices' trials were 7/74 and 2(?)/75. Genty dug in separate areas initially before shouting what you've added to the article quote-wise, Cake. Genty uncovered adipocere and human hair too. I can't remember where the [fornication] I read that about the handcuff key being inspired by Corll, but I read it somewhere.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly nothing callous intended. If anything, it's a worry they've used some photo from another case or something instead of giving proper respect to the victims. Certainly seen e. g. Russell Nelson's image used when they speak of Tim McCoy. Note that here it shows Bowman up top and the face in question at the bottom. His hair seems lighter than Bowman's too. The one in the middle second from left is also one I've never seen before. Cake (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was a knee cap and leg bone which they showed Stein to confirm it was human. Also, what is the deal with Charles Hattula? Why isn't he regarded as a Gacy victim? Forgive all the "citation needed" but I think it will help if you ever want to nominate for GA. It's a fine article. The only issue might be when it introduces certain people and terms a bit late, such as Kozenczak (peace be upon him). Cake (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
One last thing - Amirante seems to say Gacy's travel records are as much BS as anything else from Gacy. Cake (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It's fine don't worry; I don't want to sound callous but if producers make errors on documentaries that's their problem to my mind. I'll add citations wherever requested (if I am interested in a book of any genre, a film, or like a particular music CD I'm the sort of person who has to own it so I have a lot of these references used here). You're right about the bones shown to Stein, but the article text ceases with uncovering of the arm bone. Hattula's autopsy ruled he had died of drowning. It's in the early part of the Killer Clown book. Intriguingly, he was living with a woman named Doreen at the time of Hatulla's disappearance, and he did say he'd disposed of 5 victims in the river, although I believe he said the bodies of the "last five" he killed were disposed of in this way.

If you ever want to nominate this for GA be my guest. I've worked with other editors like John, Hoops gza, and DendroNaja on other articles over the years. I'll help you bring any improvements or references you'd like to see added if you want. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article seems to be attracting a lot of vandalism lately. I was wondering if it should be protected for a fixed or indefinite period of time?--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Father's name

John Wayne Gacy got his first name from his father. His parents named him after John Wayne, a favorite actor of his parents. Hence, his father's name was not John Wayne Gacy. In fact, it was not originally Gacy, either. I erased the middle name Wayne and someone reverted my change without reason. All census and death records refer to Gacy's father as John Gacy with no middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Daviddaniel37 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, this cited source lists Gacy's father's name as "John Wayne Gacy". Please provide a reliable source to support your claims before removing the middle name again. General Ization Talk 20:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of non-authoritative sources that suggest Gacy's father's (original) middle name was actually Stanley; however, they are not sources that qualify for citation here. If you can find one that does, please provide it and your edit will stand. Otherwise, it is just as possible that Gacy's father changed his own middle name (perhaps to honor John Wayne) when he apparently changed his last name. General Ization Talk 20:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Check archive two. This was discussed years ago. Contrary to your claims, and as General Ization says, some sources (at least on the surface reputable ones) state his father's middle name was Stanley. Actually, if you look at the official death certificate on this article, that states unequivocally his father's middle name was Stanley.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone making up a genealogy for John Wayne Gacy and giving his father the same middle name does not make the source a reliable source. Someone else can make up a genealogy at a website and make his middle name Alice. No source at Ancestry.com gives John Gacy, Sr. the middle name of Wayne and it is beneath the standards of Wikipedia to make such an error. In the earliest entry, John Gacy's family name is Gaca (1910 census) and gacia (1920 census). John Sr.'s father was from Poland. Biographies state that John wayne Gacy was named after John Wayne, his mother's favorite actor. ‎Daviddaniel37 (talk)

Well it depends how pedantic people want to be, and opinions as to what would classify as reputable. Even though generally I agree with you, General Ization has a valid point.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Reducing the number of 'youths'

Just as someone who was reading this article, I noticed the excessive number of times 'youth' was used in lieu of pronouns. It must be used around a hundred times and it's a bit jarring considering the first section of the wiki tells us Gacy only had male victims. Does anyone have any objections to altering some of these for the sake of clarity, considering we know the 'youths' were boys and using 'youth' so often reads quite awkwardly?

--MissAngSar — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissAngSar (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Wayne Gacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Wayne Gacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Why does this article discuss his sexual preference (homosexuality)?

In many places, this article discusses Gacy's sexual preference, homosexuality. I don't see the relevance. If his preference was heterosexual, we wouldn't say,

The same year, Gacy had his second heterosexual experience

Several teenagers were tricked into believing Gacy was commissioned with carrying out heterosexual experiments in the interests of "scientific research"

books on heterosexuality and pederasty

The premise is that homosexuality is something special, wrong, or relevant to his crimes; the homo prefix is irrelevant. We should just say sexual: "his second sexual experience"; "sexual experiments"; "books on sexuality". guanxi (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. Yes, same-sex sexual activity was legal in Illinois in 1964, but there seems to have been some conflict in those sexual activities, presumably clandestine, with his courtship of Marlynn and his subsequent marriages, first to her and then to Carole Hoff? Was that really his "second sexual experience" or just his "second homosexual experience"? It's currently hard to tell from the content of article. So I'm not sure your edits are all wholly justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
You should read the books, especially in context of his progressive, escalating pattern of offending against males , and guile as his means to achieve his desires. The guy was a homosexual serial killer. Your 1st edit was wrong - he had his first sexual experience (with a "broad" to use his vocabulary) at age 18. He'd had other experiences by age 22. That was his second time with a male and not too long afterwards he began to prey on males. The second edit you made, John Gacy referred to it as the Kinsey Report. The "experiments" had to be same sex i.e. homosexual. The last edit.... if you're looking for a missing 15 year old boy and you've established/are rapidly establishing his backlog of offenses against young males in Iowa and Illinois, it's kinda ominous finding material of "that type" of sexuality, certainly more than finding a stash of Playboy magazines.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Gacy's sexual desires were a cornerstone to his violent behaviour, and should be seen as a central topic to understanding his behaviour. He was raised to think - and feel - that the desires he felt were weak, pathetic, unmany, and disgusting. His self-loathing, and feelings of violence towards other men who engaged in sex with men, were directly related to the issue of his sexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.31.124 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A document with details of Gacy's own death is less important than how his victims died.

Here is the edit summary of an edit I made a moment ago.

Death certificate of an incarcerated serial killer tells you nothing about the murders he committed before he was arrested. Wikipedia editors shouldn't come across as creepy.Myra or someone (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So what is your point? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
This was obviously a WP:POINTy reaction to consensus going against Myra or someone at Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen#Image_of_her_death_certificate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see. Quite an agenda. Thanks for explaining. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
At least helping Dorothy Kilgallen's memory is hardly a creepy agenda. Her death certificate says "circumstances undetermined." Apparently, you think Wikipedia readers should know the exact medical cause of death of a convicted serial killer who was sentenced to die by lethal injection. How his victims suffered and died doesn't matter. That's a creepy agenda.Myra or someone (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It is called consensus. Using "per talk page discussion" (as if it existed "here") as your justification to hold this image upon this article, Myra. --Kieronoldham (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Darrell Sampson

I'm really sorry to ask this, but could someone please verify and fix the info about the place where Darrell Sampson was buried. The info in the body of the article and under the victim's photo differ. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.52.248 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

He was buried beneath two floor joists in Gacy's dining room. The body was discovered while the house was being dismantled and an investigator prodded at some old ceramic tiles beneath the floor, then uncovered a hip bone.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC).
I'm also sorry to ask this, but presumably the remains of all the victims were later re-buried at different, more appropriate, locations? Perhaps the article need not concern itself with this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The article doesn't go into too much detail, and very little is unnecessary. With an offender of this nature and the chronology of his crimes (especially in conjunction with when he lived with his wife and later employee lodgers) I think it is important, even more so as active efforts are ongoing to identify the unidentified victims. Other articles like the Ted Bundy one and even Moors Murderers article describe burial locations. There's over 400 watchers to this article, Martin. I suppose consensus governs.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Parole or probation?

In the “Conviction and imprisonment" section, it states: "Despite his lawyers' recommendations for parole, Gacy was convicted of sodomy on December 3, 1968...." Does the editor mean "probation" rather than parole? Parole is granted after imprisonment; one cannot be sentenced to parole. Matuko (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Probation was the recommendation of Parole and Probation Officer Jack D. Harker, who tried to convince the court the offense was "experimental" in nature, and Gacy would make good under supervision back in Illinois.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Gacy's execution was filmed

His execution was filmed. Could someone please find a verifiable source? - 2602:306:C478:5C90:F9E0:3E68:33E2:4DC6 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So where did you learn this information? Until a reliable source is found, this should not be included in the article. It should not be included as a category until it's in the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It was relayed by a kind of CCTV to some of the witnesses - this doesn't necessarily mean that it was also recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.31.124 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, this is a well-known fact in Chicago. His execution was filmed. They have discussed it on the Chicago nightly news. - 108.71.133.201 (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Cause of death: Acute congestive heart failure

There appears to be misinformation on the article about Gacy's cause of death. Here is Gacy's death certificate: [1], conveniently located on the Wikimedia Commons. Since I know how to read English, and since I know what an actual medical cause of death is, I changed it to the correct cause of death, but it was reverted. The cause of death, as can be gathered from reading the death certificate, is acute congestive heart failure. - 108.71.133.201 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

To my mind, readers looking at the infobox want to know how the guy died. Sure, there is the immediate cause of death listed on the death certificate, but the average reader isn't a physician or scientist looking for the specific physiologic process that resulted in Gacy's death. Maybe you guys can compromise on "acute heart failure related to lethal injection" (which is also supported by the death certificate). Even failing that, we can assume that all contributors here have the ability to read the English language. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The actual cause of death is on line 18.I.c.: Lethal injection. I suspect you don't actually know what an actual cause of death is: it's the underlying condition, not the mechanism by which that condition kills. The CDC instructions for filling out death certificates notes that "The cause-of-death section...follows guidelines recommended by the World Health Organization. An important feature is the reported underlying cause of death determined by the certifying physician and defined as (a) the disease or injury that initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death, or (b) the circumstances of the accident or violence that produced the fatal injury. In addition to the underlying cause of death, this section provides for reporting the entire sequence of events leading to death as well as other conditions significantly contributing to death." The cause of death is the underlying initiating condition, not the means of death. [2] - Nunh-huh 01:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
We can all see the Commons image on the page. I think Larry Hockett has a good point, altough it is ultimately a form of execution. If someone is executed by hanging I don't think it makes sense to read a cause of death as broken neck in the infobox. I always used the Ted Bundy article as a reference point when I started writing/populating articles of this nature. Look at the official cause of death description in that infobox. But, I won't lose sleep if consensus goes against me.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, hanging often results in brain death before actual death. Sometimes it causes asphyxiation or unconsciousness before going to brain death, but it's usually brain death - leastways if the neck is broken. - 108.71.133.201 (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
With methods of strangulation you can typically remain conscious for between 60 and 120 seconds before the onset of unconsciousness. Cause of death should not read in an infobox as "belligerent's clenched hands".--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up that a similar series of reverts has taken place at Donald Harvey (regarding whether we say he died of blunt trauma or of a beating in prison). Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Beating in prison" isn't a cause of death, and never has been. - 108.71.133.201 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this infobox issue hotly contested on Wikipedia before, and consensus has always been to keep the description in infoboxes as execution. In the case of this article, the method is described in detail in the execution section and that should suffice. A death by beating in prison isn't a legal form of death, not if the sentence of law is "executed" as prescribed at trial.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The difference between the two entries is that Harvey was not executed; he was beaten in prison. The similarity is that in both cases we must interpret "cause of death" from either a physician's perspective or a lay reader's perspective. I think we have a disagreement about which perspective better serves the WP reader. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, just so you know, law and cause of death are mutually exclusive concepts. Also, this is English Wikipedia, not Simple English Wikipedia. Native English speakers should learn what terms like blunt trauma mean since there are respective articles for them. - 108.71.133.201 (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It was the ascribed passage of law, not a method of nature which saw this offender/individual draw his last breath. Regardless of level of intellect of the reader, this is how and why he is known.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
My concern isn't whether the terms are too complex; on the contrary, heart failure and blunt trauma are not meaningful enough to understand the events leading to these subjects' deaths. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually, Gacy probably would have at least been mentioned eventually on Wikipedia on the Polish Constitution Day Parade article had he stayed in politics and had an influential political career. I'd imagine that someone would eventually list all of the parade's directors. - 108.71.133.201 (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

He is on that page last time I looked. Seriously, as a child, he was teased by neighborhood kids over a mythical phantom called the Black Hand (meaning death). "The Black Hand will get you" (Cahill p. 19). He's shaking Rosalynn Carter's hand in the image on there.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Gacy recent victim" photograph

At the "Museum of Historic Torture Devices" in Wisconsin Dells, there is this photograph. Morbidity aside, it's also bizarre if true. How could any of the victims not be already decomposing? If it is Piest, would he have been wearing a t-shirt during December in Chicago? Where was it taken with that wood paneling and picture on the wall? Is it just mislabeled? Cake (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: Thoughts? Cake (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@MisterCake: I don't know. Gacy never photographed his victims.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Well it's presumably not a picture taken by Gacy, but by investigators and/or excavators, like those surrounding it. Cake (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Trimming?

Hi. I really don't understand why all these minute details and lengthy and repetitive accounts of every detail in Gacy's life and the crimes he became known for are stuffed into this exhaustive article. Why not write a book instead? I mean, this is just supposed to be a simple Wikipedia article, summarizing the main points and explaining why this guy is "notable" (in the wiki-sense oc). It just feels like some overly excited teenage editor, with an extraordinary fixation on murder crimes has gone amok and collected whatever she could find and stuffed it in. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I have to be honest. Surely, there are a million other places on the net where murder fans can gather and put up these drivels?

Can we not agree to clean up this article and weed out excessive descriptions and accounts? Please? RhinoMind (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The article has 450 watchers. Other articles of this nature are similarly populated. There is little superfluous information on here. Consensus governs.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Flimsy, late ref/cite for "Pogo" mention

Why is "Pogo the Clown" mentioned in detail so late so far down in the article, (4th paragraph of 5th section (Businessman...)) ..and why is the ref/cite (aka Source) such a vague thing, i.e. "The Serial Killers, pg.68" - What is with that? Maybe continued from an earlier book cited I suppose? It looks incomplete. Vid2vid (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Because he became known as Pogo the Clown in 1975. Also, it is how he became known as The Killer Clown.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Not really following. My point was moot though because I added his Pogo alias to the InfoBox so it's ok now. Vid2vid (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with this removal of verified content in the infobox. This line item in the infobox can include multiple aliases, not just one. As it is now.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I think only aliases with reference to the crimes are apprpriate myself, RightCowLeftCoast. Depends how exhaustive you wish to delve into his past. He was known as Colonel too. The Killer Clown is obv. derived from his clowning activities and encompasses both Pogo and Patches the Clown.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
These are each different aliases, and I see now that they all can be verified. There shouldn't be any reason why these aliases can't be all included in the infobox and the lead per MOS:NICKNAME. "The Killer Clown" is different from "Pogo", or "Patches the Clown", even if they are similar.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of political party

Since the page has been protected due to disagreements over Gacy's affiliation with the Democratic Party, it's worth discussing its relevance to the article / infobox to prevent further disruptions. Let's work this out. --GouramiWatcherTalk 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to an article of this nature. Either an attempt to tarnish the Democrats via his affiliation, or repeat trolls possibly using sock accounts.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this. There's been murderers for any political party, and so attempting to tarnish the democrats seems superfluous. Ted Bundy was a republican. Charles Manson wore the swastika. Chikatilo was a communist. Dylan Klebold wrote a report on Manson, wore a swastika on his face at one time to be edgy, and then wore a Soviet Union pin on his shoe when he murdered people. Also, none of the above seems to play into those murderer's motives, and so is doubly irrelevant; not just as a silly attempt to smear non-murdering members of those political parties, but as if it provides any explanation. Then again, Gacy was a social climber as they say. He was more of an active democrat than Bundy was an active republican, or any of the others. He was a precinct captain, as Kieron knows but just to reiterate. It also did seem to play into the murders to a degree. He had connections and so kids thought it was smart to work for him, etc. I can certainly recall Gacy's political statement more than any of the above: "I am a democrat, but WITH VALUES" as he would say, which seems to play into that inner conflict so apparent in his life. It seems analogous to "I like men, but I AM BISEXUAL". I'm x, but not one of those x. I'm probably 60/40 with Kieron on this, but I can see why it should be put with Gacy's infobox more than almost any other murderer. Indeed as the editor pointed out even the picture is him with Rosalind Carter. It's not like Bundy was shaking hands with Nixon. Cake (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a real fan of that field even being in an infobox of this type. That said, the fact that Gacy was actually a worker in the Democratic party machine in Chicago, and he proudly self-identified as such, makes the relevance discussion moot. Per MoS, the infobox is a summary of the article contents, and as such, it is pretty clear that the content is relevant to his make-up and is confirmed and cited in the article body. The entry should be, in this case, included in the Infobox. Also, I have to say that Kieronoldham's assumption of bad faith regarding this discussion is quite troubling. Regards GenQuest "Talk to Me" 11:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
As active as he was in the Democrats, his murders were not political in any sense and his political affiliation and activity is extensively covered within the article. It was a coincidence his business needed physical labour which naturally young males would apply for as a means of achieving a salary and he used that as a means of attracting victims and on at least three occasions, killed his own employees, but he'd have operated the same way if he were a Republican. (He always had a strong work ethic and actually wanted to retire by the age of 45.)

Although his political leanings were established by the 1960s, he began his killing spree while still working as a chef and long before he became notably active with the Democrats after his 1970 parole and relocation to Chicago. If it is given predominance in an infobox it could be seen as an attempt at political smearing, I suppose. Also, GenQuest, maybe I am being a little too suspicious regarding an assumption of bad faith here, but I have noted an increase in vandalism on Wiki. true crime articles as of late and a lot of them seem to be, by the purest coincidence, either IP addresses or accounts very seldom used over the years.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: You wrote above, "..he used that as a means of attracting victims and on at least three occasions, killed his own employees, but he'd have operated the same way if he were a Republican.." This is an extremely dangerous, naïve, myopic, immature, biased mindset in which to be when editing Wiki. You're not a clairvoyant!! ((For one, their powers have not sufficiently been proven to the scientific community, therefore they do not exist.)) How do you or anyone else know what Gacy would've been like were he a Republican, a Libertarian, a Seventh-Day Adventist, a UFO-cultist, self identified as Cat.. I am 100% certain with every fibre of my 4yr BA college-educated being that (1) if the Subject person of an article was outspokenly a Democrat, proud of that fact, and (2) the InfoBox has a field for such political party affiliation data, then (3) unequivocally the information belongs there. I'm adding it back now. What IS your beef so often with this Wiki article being edited? You are quite too overprotective of it, in a way I stated in my first sentence, and I dare posit or submit to you that you are dangerously close to getting reported/blocked by the Wikimedia Foundation for these frivolous actions - I caution you as a fellow Editor. Good day Sir. Vid2vid (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:AVOIDYOU, WP:CIVIL, & WP:AGF
Let us focus on the content, and not on each other.
The question is a matter of weight, as in does this belong in the infobox?
IMHO, it should be at least included in the body of the article, as it can be verified.
As to whether it should be in the infobox, is the matter of the debate. The NYT is a source to verify the subject's party affiliation, as well as Chicago Tribune, A&E's Biography, and Crime Museum.
That said the subject was not a holder of an elected office. If it can be argued that the subject is partially notable for their position in the Democratic Party (at least notable enough to be mentioned as such by an elected official in the early 2010s), then I can be persuaded why it should be in the infobox. Otherwise, it is just another verified fact, which belongs in the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Vid2vid. Wow... just wow. All I was trying to do was point out the political affiliation is inconsequential to these crimes, and an insert could appear as biased. His political affiliations are extensively covered in the article, too.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: @ Cow, Thanks. :) Well-put. My purview is that Gacy sought a career one day as a politician, kicked back free construction labour and work from his Company to members of the PDM (democratic group?), and was involved in politics, hence the relevance of inclusion in an InfoBox. Vid2vid (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Weight has little to no bearing on an info box entry. Please see Wikipedia:Infobox. The infobox—which an article doesn't even have to include—is merely a summary of the information in the article body, not a stand-alone element. Weight refers to body content. The extensive coverage in the article body of his party work and affiliation, along with the picture of a mass murderer shaking hands with the first lady, kind of makes the argument that that kind of information is exactly what should be in the Infobox. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me"
(edit conflict)While the subject of this article is definitely notable for his criminal actions, prior to the criminal notability was the subject notable for their political efforts? If so, I can definitely see a reason for it in the infobox; but if he is not, than I can see why Kieronoldham holds the position they hold.
While the subject of this article is definitely notable for their crimes, they can also be notable for their attempted political career; at this point I am open to be persuaded either way.
How significant is it that the subject of this article was a precinct captain who met the First Lady?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Weight matters IMHO as the Infobox is part of the lead section, and what is summarized in the lead definitely does matter. Per MOS:LEAD:

It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies

Is the subject of the article's political work part of those most important points?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

Under the "Execution" section, when it states, "After Gacy's death was confirmed at 12:58 a.m. on May 10, 1994, his brain was removed. It is in the possession of Helen Morrison, a witness for the defense at Gary's trial, who has interviewed Gacy and other serial killers in an attempt to isolate common personality traits of violent sociopaths.", please change this information to, "After John Wayne Gacy's death was confirmed at 12:58 a.m. on May 10, 1994, his brain was donated for scientific study, and once the examination was complete, Dr. Helen Morrison, a Forensic Psychiatrist who spent over 600 hours with Gacy, took possession of his brain. Dr. Morrison still owns the brain to this day, and she believes that there is a presence of Gacy in the Joliet Correctional Center in Joliet, Illinois where Gacy was once housed." This information can be found in the Travel Channel television series, Ghost Adventures, in their four-part special event, "Serial Killer Spirits: John Gacy Prison, which originally aired on October 12, 2019. Additionally, under the "Media" section, specifically under the "Television" section, it needs to be updated to include, "The Travel Channel has broadcast an episode about John Wayne Gacy within the television series, Ghost Adventures. In this episode, the crew from Ghost Adventures investigated the Joliet Correctional Center in Joliet, Illinois where Gacy was once housed and his spirit is believed to now haunt. This investigation was part of a four-part special event, "Serial Killer Spirits: John Gacy Prison", which originally aired on October 12, 2019." Kristenlmayes (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. This would need more reliable sourcing, and in any case, this has only the thinnest of connections to Gacy. Since ghosts aren't real, I don't think we need to spend any space discussing what others think about it unless there's been some overwhelming discussion of it in sources. One garbage Travel Channel special isn't enough. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Other image

Shouldn't there be one showing the crawl space and the diagram, if that's possible with copyright or whatever. Like this (if I have the orientation right)? Cake (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The orientation in the images is correct.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

How is it that there isn't a (post murder) mugshot freely available? Aren't mugshots PD? Can't we upload these? LittleJerry (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Just referenced the same thing on my own talk page. The infamous pic with Rosalynn seems fine in the body, and the one you linked is the first one that came to mind, though it is an unflattering picture. Also why is the Iowa one so small? Cake (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The new image currently in the infobox was one commissioned by Jason Moss, author of the book The Last Victim. Moss committed suicide in 2006. I very much doubt the image is the uploader's 'own work'. There was a December 1978 mug shot of Gacy in the infobox until 2019. It was then removed.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. I have no idea why that would be. LittleJerry (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems there is no PD template for the state of Illinois at Wikicommons. LittleJerry (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I tried uploading a mugshot to commons using the same licensing as File:Jeffrey Dahmer Milwaukee Police 1991 mugshot.jpg, but the template got screwed up for some reason. LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure you can achieve it. Article would benefit.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The image removed in 2019 would best suit the infobox, in my opinion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The laughing mugshot would make sense at top of arrest/confession section. So the other I called unflattering seems to be the one suited for the infobox, imo. Cake (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree. Icing on the...--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use the (one of the two?) mugshots on the 21st when he was arrested for cannabis. Cake (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It'd be an improvement.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Media/Music

Since Gacy also left his mark in the world of music, at least the most direct influences on the work of artists may be of importance. I'm starting with

I'll have to check it out. The big ones are:
One sad, one mad. I considered a "Legacy" section, but I couldn't think of a better word and didn't want to glamorize the murders. "Aftermath" doesn't quite capture it. But the Amber Alert being by itself seemed odd, and seems like it could be in a section with media and music. Cheers. Cake (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
If consensus goes against me I'll abide, but I really don't think this information is important. Nor the Church of Misery song etc. It could result in a deluge of trivial portrayals on South Park or mentions in a particular crime fiction series.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't really disagree, but tried to think of a way to move the Amber Alert to the section with the books, or somewhere other than by itself. Cake (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The Missing Child Recovery Act of 1984 is pertinent, but currently slightly juxtaposed as the article currently stands. The Later investigations section could become ==Aftermath== (or some other appropriate title), with a subsection titled "Legal Acts" & "Missing Child Recovery Act of 1984", followed by a further "Later investigations", section, perhaps? Just a suggestion. What do you think?--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Thortheg0d1 (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

he denied his last meal and got executed by lethal injection

@Thortheg0d1:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Investigation -> First search warrant

A chemical is referred to as amyl nitrate here. Links to the Wiki article on that chemical indicate it's often spelling confused with amyl nitrite, known as poppers. Is this a typo/confusion? I don't have the referenced source at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.60.46 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The reference states a plastic bottle containing "suspected Valium, Amyl Nitrate" (not nitrite). May be a misspelling. Another source states these items (recovered from Gacy's bedroom) were "a large and varied supply of pills". I am no expert in this field, but although I can see your consideration this may have been poppers, poppers are inhaled.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that too. Pretty sure it did mean poppers. What else would make sense? Either it's a mistake and Gacy had a drug often used by homosexuals, or Gacy was a mad scientist. Several sources say "It is often confused with amyl nitrate, which is, in fact, a different chemical with a similar name, often misspelled as amil nitrate." Cake (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Already fixed.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Harv references

fwiw, not trying to act like the article is mine (if anybody's it's kieron's) but the harv tags are what make it so when you click on the source e. g. "Cahill 1986" it links you to to the bottom i. e. "Cahill Buried Dreams blah blah". It also can be set up so it tells you when this link is broken, so you get a big "CITEREF HARV NO WORK" several times on the bottom as well. Cake (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I may have contributed more than most or all others on this article, but Wiki is for us all, MisterCake. Someone who makes one minor productive edit is as worthy of credit as you, me or anyone else. I didn't implement that format. Personally I like the benefit of linkage to the original sources, though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone edit the part referencing the National Museum of Crime and Punishment? ~~AzuraMiracle~~

I cannot edit it, but it says that some of his paintings and costumes *are* displayed there, despite the museum having been closed down for a few years now.

~~AzuraMiracle, forgot my normal account name.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.186.171 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Closed in 2015, so that information is redundant.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The subsection on Robert Piest mentions how Gacy strangled him with a tourniquet and later in the article it mentions that autopsy which found wads of paper in this throat. LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

He had the tourniquet around his neck, and had just begun twisting the hammer handle when he was interrupted by the phone call. The three wads of paper were already lodged in Piest's mouth. Piest began panicking as Gacy took the call.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The book doesn't mention him stuffing paper in his mouth. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Chicago Killer book, p. 203 and p. 262 of Killer Clown state this, LittleJerry. Maybe the autopsy report can be found online? I have a copy of a complaint for preliminary examination which states: "Killed Robert J. Piest without lawful justification by strangling him with a rope. Intended to kill said Robert J. Piest." This is dated December 1978, before his body was found. I personally think the actual autopsy report needs to be viewed, if online.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, don't know what to do about that. I guess Gacy lied about how he killed him. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The victims found with cloth lodged in the mouth (Body 16, Body 22, Body 7 etc.) but no ligature around the neck were all examined by Stein and death was ruled as asphyxia. Stein also performed the autopsy upon Piest's body. This is the closest source to a direct reference to cause of death.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The second victim is supposed to be insightful for those. Some see it as evidence of accomplices, but I think the usual take is probably something like what BTK references - people waking up post attempts on their life with strangling, but in Gacy's case your mouth is stuffed full of paper by that point. I did not take it to mean you got strangled with cloth down your throat already. Cake (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Body 1 and 13

So was Body 13 the first one unearthed, in the southwest corner, with Body 1 (Prestidge) in the northeast? Without this noted it might seem like Body 1 was also Body 13. Cake (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Genty crawled to separate areas of the crawl space, uncovering adipocere, a clump of human hair etc. in different areas. Stein, if memory serves me correct, decided to focus on one area of the crawl space at a time.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
It could be confusing for a reader to see "the first body was unearthed was in the southwest corner....body 1 was in the northeast corner." Cake (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, MisterCake. He went to the southwest corner, made discoveries of adipocere flesh there, then an arm bone. After shouting that they could charge Gacy with murder, Genty and two others began digging in the northeast corner, uncovering a kneecap. When Stein arrived, they showed him the various discoveries in two locations (not including those first in the southwest corner). Stein was shown the kneecap at one location, two leg found bones elsewhere, and then was asked if he wanted to crawl over to look in the southwest corner. He replied: "No. That's enough for me. I know what we're up against." Pages 166-168 of Sullivan's book.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Borowski

A great source but I believe police docs count as "primary sources" - and so it can be in the further reading, but rather we should find secondary sources citing the likes of those docs for those statements citing Borowski, lest we violate the policy against original research. Cake (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: Buried Dreams is very interesting on Butkovich, but isn't it saying he waved, not Gacy? Didn't know Butkovich left his car there, not Gacy. Cake (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, MisterCake. While Gacy was "cruising" he saw Butkovitch exiting his car at Sheridan and Lawrence. He got in Gacy's car, leaving his jacket and wallet in his own vehicle. Not being able to find his wallet was an incentive to go back to Summerdale Ave. for a drink and discuss the issue of his outstanding wages.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that, and that they were both drunk. One had always pictured Gacy dumping his car and items there. Next I forget my wallet I'll try to tell myself it could be worse. Cake (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed the Borowski source from those facts with Borowski as one of several sources, though of course still worth looking at if some part of it as stated came from there. Left those with only Borowski as source, hopefully to find a better one, or to discuss what to do about it at another time. Cake (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I have added one which can replace ref. 242 on your talk page if you wish to add it. Obv. the article has a tag atop it at the moment. Be happy to look for others to supersede, but I think there will be difficulties replacing Stein's recovery reports, unless they are online.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't think it's where they are so much as whether Stein's reports are primary or secondary sources. If primary, as I submit, then hopefully one of Killer Clown, Buried Dreams, and so on cites the same report, for then we can cite the book which cites the report and there's nothing approaching original research. Cake (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kieronoldham: I've purged the article of the sources referring to Borowski (primary, original research) and Kozenczak (self published, so not seen as trustworthy despite his standing), leaving a few 'citation needed' tags. If those bits get either removed or sourced, one can move on to more aesthetic considerations for a good article nomination. Cake (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I have replaced all CN tags that I can, MisterCake. One remains outstanding.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well done and appreciate it. My only thoughts remaining before GAN are e. g. that "murder case book" source. When I tried to look into it some time ago, such that I could have it fit the style of the other references, it seemed a different edition was the one dedicated to Gacy, but I assumed you had the paper copy and something about him was buried on that page. I have to do something similar with the "Policing" source for the psychic. It seems to have a good deal dedicated to it, but is left in snippet view and hard to find enough about it to source it properly. Other things are aesthetic. Say, if one footnote is page 209-211, and the next is the same source page 212-13. it might be possible to just combined them into one page 209-13. Not if say separated by a section, but usually otherwise. Also, for "more pictures the better", the infamy of it, and really most of all for balancing the feel on the eyes, I wonder if there's a picture of the house in the public domain. Cheers. Cake (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, MisterCake. There are two editions. Casebook (issue 54) was devoted to the Gacy case. The edition was later reprinted as Murder in Mind (issue 11) in the late 1990s. Individuals such as Colin Evans and Bill Waddell were consultants. I have bought both copies and can check through them if you wish. I am sure I could find a source regarding the psychic to add to the article. Sullivan's book states Kozenczak related this information to the team as sourcing from an "anonymous woman caller". As for the house, I am sure a lower quality image can be uploaded if we observe minimal usage.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I see now. Source says 84, but the ISBN is 54, which has that particularly ugly picture of Gacy on it. Surprised it has that many pages. Will fix now Cake (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

piest

Hello I'm new to wiki "editing, correcting" and suggestions, but could someone remove the extra usage of "Piest" right after the word disappearance its in the last paragraph under investigation I believe. I copied the paragraph its in just to be clear.


At 3:20 a.m., Gacy arrived at the police station covered in mud, claiming he had been involved in a car accident.[107][m] On returning to the police station later that day, Gacy denied any involvement in Piest's disappearance Piest and repeated that he had not offered him a job. When asked why he had returned to the pharmacy, Gacy reiterated that he had done so in response to a phone call from Torf informing him he had left his appointment book at the store. Detectives had already spoken with Torf, who denied calling Gacy. At the request of detectives, Gacy prepared a written statement detailing his movements on December 11.[107] ThorOdinsonThor (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction its the 3rd paragraph under investigation not the last. ThorOdinsonThor (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch; had recently made that section shorter and I guess my fingers stuttered while trying to express the same point in fewer words. Cake (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the hard work. ThorOdinsonThor (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Potential Accomplices

Can the extra "before" be removed from the 4th paragraph under potential accomplices. It says "An anxious Gacy was observed walking with the two out of earshot of the surveillance officers to talk privately before the three before returning closer to the officers". Unless im just misunderstanding the wording. ThorOdinsonThor (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Cake has already taken care of this, ThorOdinsonThor. Well spotted. Hope you stay on Wiki.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you,Kieronoldham. I definitely plan on staying just not for major types of edits but atleast for minor slips/overlooks. ThorOdinsonThor (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Samson

I don't know about you all but of the identified Samson, Reffett, and Stapleton seem particularly difficult to find much about. Just about the most I've seen about Samson anywhere is his findagrave, e. g. that he worked carpeting in Libertyville. Cake (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

When these major GA-seeking edits were performed and I bought the Borowski book, I looked online again. Somebody online has researched extensively into Samson's background, finding the correct surname spelling, place and date of birth, and history. He was a twin, apparently. He was only just identified in time to be among the named victims at trial. According to one source, he was engaged to be married. Maybe the timing of identification is why there was less press focus? Stapleton was walking home from his sister's home at 11p.m. Reffett had received a stab wound to his upper left chest shortly after enrolling at Senn. The X-ray included his lower left jaw, so that helped facilitate his identification.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Only just realized not all of the films and media is sourced. Cake (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I think my curiosity with them is ultimately the burial locations on top of seeming like enigmas compared to some others and being the first ones after the divorce. The dining room rather than the crawl space sticks in my craw (l space), though maybe it was for practical reasons like Butkovich in the garage. But then back to the crawl space for the first double is interesting. Anyway, if I am reading Borowski correctly, Hattula fell in the river while repairing a car, with friends as witnesses, but I guess they didn't call 911? Were they that high? And then, why would he ever be considered a possible victim? Cake (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Gacy's life is of course well-documented. Garage was (as explained in the article) a necessity as Carole, Tammy, and April had returned home earlier than expected. There was internal restructuring in the house by April of '76 and he had recently become single again. Opportunistic. Inference is used in reference to the unidentified burials. Look at the positions of victims 14 & 15 diagonal to victim 10, closer to the edge of the crawl space, then 6 & 7. Everything points to the unidentified victim being murdered prior to May 14 of 1976. He said his second victim was buried in the crawl space. Des Plaines investigators researched Hattula's death after being informed he had drowned. They received official notification the death was accidental. --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It is interesting of course that Kunkel and not Gacy is the source for the second victim. True that if the second was in the crawl space as Gacy said, then not the strange occurrence of him going 'back' to the crawl space so to speak. Cake (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Kunkle was referring in the arguments to the jury about Gacy's statements, I believe it's referenced. Trial transcript in Amirante's book. He then suggested to the jury the second was #28 and not Gacy's indication he thought the second was in the crawl space. His wife was still living with him when at least three victims were murdered (personally I'd say four as he mentions the year 1974 a lot in his early statements), but she visited friends and relatives a lot, so the second victim could have been buried in the crawl space when she was not in the home. She also knew by '75 he was having sex with males increasingly, and spent a lot of time "puttering" about the garden and garage, where he often brought his partners. Of course he had a reduced risk of discovery (by his wife at least) if the victim #28 was buried outside the house at a time she was present in the house, and everything I have read indicates that victim was murdered by 1975 as the BBQ pit was constructed in time for that year's themed party. His neighbor, Grexa(?) noted him digging there in '75 only for the hole to be filled ready for the Western Theme BBQ.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Patches

Can't remember where I got it from but pretty confident Gacy was Patches for those attached to PDM Contractors. Buried Dreams does say Rossi was assistant and it's interesting, but seems to need a sentence on when Gacy was Patches. The one oft shown photo of Gacy as Patches is cropped so as not to show the 33 flavors of ice cream on the balloon he is holding, an eerie connection to the 33 murders. Cake (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Gacy was Patches the Clown too. There is an August 1977 publicity photo of him performing as Patches which you mention. The infamous picture of him as Pogo outside his own front door dates from December 1976. I certainly can find a reference for this.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Was hoping for a sentence on Patches being connected to PDM. That can justify it being a subset of the PDM section, as it is now, which seems to read the best to me. The one you added is very nice to introduce it; something like "Pogo was less serious than Patches; Pogo was at childrens parties and Patches for PDM clients." I've archived everything I could, and am nearing the end of fat trimming. I'll probably do one last review comparing the murders section with the statements of facts for each victim in Borowski. Then I can remain silent aside from GAN and the talk page. Cake (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
No worries, MisterCake. Added some more info. about Patches to the section, although it is now the first instance of mention of his name in the article. If you wish me to research anything further, feel free to ask.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Already have Rossi as Patches mentioned in the Employees section, where Rossi seems introduced. While not fat he did have the clown look in the one look ever saw of him going under the police tape. Perhaps I'm wrong and I dreamed it, but I thought somewhere it was written or Gacy said he was Patches for clients of PDM contractors. Then one wouldn't have some balancing act between whether clowning or employees to go first. Politics then runs into Rosalyn which was near the end. Also can justify on alphabetical grounds. Also, maybe I'm wrong to think if you have a wikipedia page and are connected to the case one should get a mention - but did not Edward Hanrahan represent Rossi? Cake (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Aye, he did. Rossi's mother appointed him, if memory serves me correct. I know he performed as Gacy's assistant clown. Personally I think the structuring as the article currently stands with PDM, then Clown, then Employees, is ideal, as he established his business first.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm partial to it as well, but think clown might need a PDM mention if it's going to be a subset. Also trying to think how to mention Hanrahan other than a note. Cake (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I act. think a note may be best, unless morphing into the 'Potential accomplices' section can be achieved? I'll try and find a ref. for Patches outside the Foreman and Cahill ones for the article. All the best.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice Prez (or something) of RaphCo

Worth mentioning? Cake (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Richard Rapheal's firm. Gacy was scheduled to be at his home to discuss a job on the evening he killed his last victim. He only met Gacy in September 1978, and subcontracted remodeling on drugstore jobs to him.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Would be about 100K a year in todays money from that side position had he stayed on. So might go towards showing the "workaholic". Is that a word, by the way? I recall the Simpsons "I'm a rageaholic; I can't live without rageahol". Cake (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
He was looking forward to a $500,000 a year turnover in 1979. Wanted to retire by 45. In the language over here (as is "jobsworth") but the usage is in the Buried Dreams book, so I figured...--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I've heard it used of course but wonder if "hard-working" or something is more encyclopedic. Cake (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Aye. Needs changing. --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Lots of use of "on occasion" or "occasionally" as well. Probably our fault and the copyedit just doing their best, but changing a few to "sometimes" or whatever probably reads better. Cake (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Just so much info. about the case, and so many sources. Largely personally culpable, Cake, others on here too, but I myself just want(ed) to avoid a cut and splicing impression. Maintain a smooth reading flow. Articles that are beyond "stub" status need to command and maintain readers' interest start to finish. This is just my personal outlook but imagine an avid reader of the lowest quality gutter press rag, then an avid Guardian reader. (I'm sure you can find equivalent American press.) Potentially, both are readers here, and you want to keep both intrigued. Just trying to avoid "jumping about" with sentences.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
There's something to be said for consistency too, just worry of overuse. Cake (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Gordon Nebel is another to wonder about if he's worth mentioning. Cake (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Wayne Gacy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 11:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Mostly fine, but see below.
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): As necessary at GA level.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): And a lot of them, too.
    b (citations to reliable sources): Fine at the GA level.
    c (OR): No issues.
    d (copyvio and plagiarism): No issues. Earwig calls two false positives, one for someone dumping the article's full text on a forum and one for sharing generic passages with the court report.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Above and beyond the GA level.
    b (focused): No issues.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: I suppose it's difficult to over-POV about a serial killer, isn't it?
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: No issues.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): No issues. Virtually all fair-use; in some cases the resulting shrinkage makes them difficult to make out, but that's a problem with Wikipedia, not this article.
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions): No issues.

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

On the whole, excellent work and an excellent read. I'm looking forward to passing this, and it's solidly FA-track, let alone GA; I've read a decent amount about this case, yet still learned quite a bit new from the footnotes especially. There are some nits to pick, and I'll pick them as we go.

One of Gacy's earliest memories was being beaten with a leather belt for accidentally disarranging car engine components his father had assembled.[10] His mother tried to shield her son from his father's abuse, which only resulted in accusations that he was a "sissy" and a "Mama's boy" who would "probably grow up queer".

Possibly "Queer" here as a piped link should be specifically to Queer#Early pejorative use?

During the fourth grade, Gacy began to experience blackouts. He was hospitalized on occasion because of the seizures

Blackouts and seizures are different. Which was he experiencing? Both?

Once in 1957, he witnessed Gacy's father shouting at his son for no reason, then begin hitting him.

This sentence is mildly confusing; I can picture someone, especially a non-native speaker, combining it with the previous sentence to think the friend was hitting the elder Gacy. Considering the 1. meaninglessness and 2. physical altercation are the focal points here, I think this can be simplified down to something like "Once in 1957, he witnesses Gacy's father assaulting his son for no apparent reason".

Marlynn's father subsequently purchased three Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurants in Waterloo, Iowa, and the couple moved there so he could manage the restaurants, with the understanding that they would move into Marlynn's parents' home—vacated for the couple.

This sentence is fairly long, and tries to make up for it with a few different kinds of sentence breaks that just read more awkwardly. Suggested rewrite: "Marlynn's father subsequently purchased three Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurants in Waterloo, Iowa. The couple moved there so he could manage the restaurants, with the understanding that they would move into Marlynn's parents' former home, which had been vacated for the couple."

When Gacy's parents visited in July 1966, his father privately apologized for the physical and emotional abuse he had inflicted throughout his son's childhood and adolescence and said: "Son, I was wrong about you" as he shook Gacy's hand.

(Heartwarming, if you ignore literally everything else.) I don't think that needs the colon.

In Waterloo, Gacy joined the local Jaycees chapter

So Jaycees is linked a little further up, but you can't necessarily assume people are reading articles in order, and the organization is obscure to...probably everyone who isn't in it. Considering the gap between this and the previous link, I would recommend linking here as well.

Gacy plied Voorhees with alcohol, allowed him to watch a stag movie, then persuaded him to engage in mutual oral sex, adding: "You have to have sex with a man before you start having sex with women."

(Do you now?) As prior, I don't think the colon here is necessary.

Two doctors examined him over a period of 17 days before concluding he had an antisocial personality disorder (which incorporates constructs such as sociopathy and psychopathy)

I wonder what to do with this phrase. Antisocial personality disorder is usually referred to directly rather than preceded with 'an', but more concerningly, I'm unsure whether "includes constructs such as sociopathy and psychopathy" makes the sentence better or worse. On the one hand, both concepts are...questionable; on the other hand, a general reader population is far more likely to have a reference for them than for ASPD. Probably it should be kept, just dropping the 'an', but I'm mentioning this just to stake it.

In 1971, Gacy established a part-time construction business, PDM Contractors (PDM being the initials for 'Painting, Decorating, and Maintenance').

This is a mildly amateurish-sounding sentence. The single quotes should be double quotes, IMO. I'm unsure on the necessity of the brackets, rather than just "PDM Contractors, PDM being".

In late 1975, Gacy joined and created his own clown characters: "Pogo the Clown" and "Patches the Clown".

Per prior comments on colon overuse. (I'm not noting every colon use, because I think some of them in this article have been used properly, but this should just be a comma at most.)

Some professional clowns have noted the sharp corners Gacy painted at the edges of his mouth are contrary to the rounded borders that they normally use, so as not to scare children.

This is a really interesting footnote. I'm unsure whether it's best featured where it is, or in the caption on the Pogo picture -- I think it's more relevant in the caption.

Antonucci later recalled that Gacy told him: "Not only are you the only one who got out of the cuffs, you got them on me."

Per prior on colon.

Gacy conned Cram into donning handcuffs, in front of his body.

This is an odd sentence, and it took me quite a while to parse it. Is the statement here that he was cuffed with his hands/arms in front of him rather than behind? It's not expressed particularly clearly.

A month later, Gacy appeared at Cram's bedroom door intending to rape him, saying: "Dave, you really don't know who I am. Maybe it would be good if you give me what I want." Cram resisted, straddling Gacy, who left the bedroom, stating, "You ain't no fun."

Per prior on colon for the first sentence. The second sentence seems overpunctuated. I don't think there needs to be a comma before the quote.

Rossi sometimes assisted Gacy in clowning at grand openings of businesses; Gacy as Pogo and Rossi as Patches.

Ironically, this is a point where you would use a colon, but you used a semicolon instead.

Gacy usually lured a lone victim to his house, although on approximately three occasions, Gacy had what he called "doubles"—two victims killed in the same evening.

Now, it's been a while since I read much on Gacy, so perhaps this is the best you can say -- but approximately three sounds...odd. It's not like he could have done so on 2.8 or 3.4 occasions. Can this just be "three" or is the matter so unclear that saying it in Wikipedia-voice would be hopelessly misleading?

With his victim manacled, and unable to free himself, Gacy then made a statement to the effect that: "The trick is, you have to have the key."

Couple of notes here: colon is unnecessary, "manacled, and unable to free himself" doesn't need the comma.

He frequently began by sitting on the chest before forcing his victim to fellate him.

"The" chest is odd phrasing; is the reference to the victim's chest or some physical object?

To immobilize his captives' legs before engaging in acts of torture, Gacy frequently manacled their ankles to a two-by-four with handcuffs attached at each end; an act inspired by the Houston Mass Murders.

Should be a comma and not a semicolon. (Hell, could be a colon!)

On July 31, 1975, another of Gacy's employees, an 18-year-old from Lombard, John Butkovich, disappeared.

I think this reads better putting "John Butkovich" before "an 18-year-old from Lombard".

According to Gacy, Butkovich approached his car, stating, "I wanna talk to you."

No comma necessary before this quote.

One neighbor later recollected that, for several years, the sounds of muffled high-pitched screaming, shouting, and crying had repeatedly wakened her and her son in the early morning hours.

"Wakened" should be "awakened".

Donnelly later testified at Gacy's trial that he was in such pain that he asked Gacy to kill him. Gacy replied, "I'm getting round to it."

Per prior on comma before short quotes.

Investigators also found handcuffs, books on homosexuality and pederasty, seven pornographic films, capsules of amyl nitrite, and an 18-inch (460 mm) dildo in Gacy's bedroom. A 39-inch (990 mm) two-by-four with two holes drilled into each end, bottles of Valium and atropine, and several driver's licenses were found in the northwest bedroom.

Should the conversions here be centimetres instead of millimetres?

The officers who had searched Gacy's house previously had failed to notice this; the house had been cold.

No semicolon needed; the most natural phrasing here reads to me as "failed to notice this, as [or 'because'] the house had been cold".

Each victim unearthed from the crawl space was placed in a body bag which was placed near the front door awaiting transportation to the mortuary.

This is something of a run-on sentence, which I think needs a comma after 'bag'.

Gacy attempted to convince the doctors that he suffered from a multiple personality disorder.

I don't think this needs the 'a'. (Also, entirely personal language hangup, but I'd prefer something like "had" or "was afflicted by" over "suffered from".)

Three psychiatric experts at Gacy's trial testified they found him to be a paranoid schizophrenic with a multiple personality disorder.

Per prior on "a multiple personality disorder", or alternately -- perhaps preferentially -- "a paranoid schizophrenic with multiple personalities".

Kunkle also referred to the testimony of one of the doctors who had examined Gacy in 1968 and had concluded he was an antisocial personality, capable of committing crimes without remorse and unlikely to benefit from social or psychiatric treatment, stating that had the recommendations of this doctor been heeded, Gacy would have not been freed.

I think "...Gacy would not have been freed" reads more naturally.

He wore a silver ring on the fourth finger of his left hand, suggesting he may have been married.

While the fact "fourth finger" refers to the ring finger is clear when you hover over the text, note that 1. this is not common usage 2. the absolute majority of Wikipedia page views are on mobile, where such is impossible. I would recommend just saying "ring finger".

When asked whether there were more victims, Gacy stated, "That's for you guys to find out."

Per prior on commas before short quotes.

Gacy later claimed to have engaged in acts of necrophilia twice, while he worked at Palm Mortuary.

I don't think this needs the comma.

Because Haakenson and Johnston disappeared just 24 hours apart (and their bones were commingled) they may have been murdered on the same day or even at the same time.

I don't think the brackets here are necessary; the same effect can be replaced with commas, probably even just one comma after "commingled".

Some parties have questioned the integrity and thoroughness of the second search conducted of West Miami Avenue; citing the fact the ground of the property was still frozen on the date of the search (March 20), that the press had not been informed that the property had been searched until six days after the search had been conducted, and that the sniffer dogs used had solely been provided core samples of soil to test.

The semicolon here should be a comma.

Overall, despite the list I just gave you, this is once again an excellent article. It's a long list, yes -- but that's because it's a long article, and the quibbles are overwhelmingly grammar or readability. I'm not joking about the FA potential -- aside from those issues, it just flies past GA requirements. This is spectacular work. Give yourself a pat on the back, you deserve it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This is much appreciated. Blackouts or seizures is a good question for @Kieronoldham:. I more have him collapsing than convulsing when I picture it in my mind. Also it seems to me linking to queer is fine. The lede gives the two or three senses of the term, and I don't think anybody would confuse Gacy's father for an activist trying to 'take back' the word. I did see your point about the ambiguity with the "once in 1957" bit about Gacy and his father and tried to fix it. Will begin to do the other fixes. Cake (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @MisterCake:. You are right, he just "passed out for no reason at all". They were blackouts. To the untrained eye, they can sometimes seem like seizures (some books describe them as seizures). The only episode which, although not a seizure, visually appeared to be one, occurred after his arrest just before he was taken to Holy Family Hospital when officers were armed with the second search warrant. According to Amirante, Gacy was "flopping like a fish on a pier", his "color had gone off the charts" and he was salivating. That was an acute psychological response to his predicament though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Think that's all the others. Good idea from the review on putting the clown makeup bit under the clown photo - though the photo itself is a bit small. Also, despite the convictions, it's contentious whether he was secretly scaring children or not. Cheers. Cake (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not think it was a deliberate attempt either, @MisterCake:. His public image was of course extremely important to him, but sources state he taught himself how to apply the face paint. The feedback here is extremely encouraging, and I hope the article becomes FA. I know I thanked you at least twice last year for working with me to improve this article, but thanks again, Cake. If there are any other outstanding issues I can help with, feel free to ask.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I trust you know but just to go over it. Kunkle - or the prosecution, will bring this up. Pro clowns note it's more like a circus clown playing a mean character than a child's clown. Amirante - or the defense, will counter Gacy was a good clown. That was the good part of his Jekyll and Hyde personality. He was a clown at children's events and stuff. I suppose one could say it was his subconscious saying it was really predatory. One could also say this was pointed out by pro clowns as damage control for the bad press after Gacy in the first place. The stories about his face paint were always accompanied with disclaimers about how he wasnt a super duper official clown. So, in short, it's something anybody familiar with the Gacy case should know. However, there is no consensus about it. That's the long-winded reason for the weasel-wordy "Some". Cake (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

And oh yes the "approximately three". I too saw that and wondered what it meant. Presumably two to four. Or perhaps Gacy said 3. Article would suggest Samson and Reffett, and Parker and Marino. Then perhaps Haakenson and Johnston, and then the mystery of the unidentified. Cake (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Press will focus upon sensational aspects of a case, and authors will follow. The referenced book (Linedecker's) is informative, but copies from newspapers in sections. Clowning was brought up at trial. Amirante quoted from Jekyll and Hide in his closing arguments as he made Gacy stand. I don't know if you'd prefer to replace the image currently upon the article, but the full length picture of Gacy as Pogo was taken in December 1976 by a Martin Zielinski. Gacy said "two or three" times he had killed twice at the same time in his initial confession. Reffett and Stapleton were conclusively identified, but as you know there are disputes re: Parker and, especially, Marino. He later elaborated double murders happened "more than once". The three victims (Johnston, Haakenson and Body 26) were found face down, head to the west in the crawl space.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The pic is fine really as fair use is easier with a small image, but I dislike it with any caption longer than "Gacy as Pogo". I agree "approximately" was trying to hedge against what we don't know and that we're basing it on Gacy's testimony, but I share the reviewer's concern that it reads like "I've been to that place more than six times" when you could have said "I've been to that place seven times". A suggested rewrite would go: "Gacy usually lured a lone victim to his house, although Gacy sometimes had what he called "doubles"—two victims killed in the same evening. Gacy and investigators estimated "doubles" happened on three occasions." As an aside since you posted that infamous photo, did he have to go with the eeriest font he could find for 8213? Also interesting how beyond how frightening it is, one clearly sees the diamond window Kozenczak will speak of - and he appears to have some kind of Polish American flags sticker on the window. Cake (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
We really should find a way to note that Gacy's dad went to the basement to drink. Often given with a wink and a nod as connected to the murders and burials in the crawl space, even more so than him hiding women's underwear. It seems to make the story of Gacy's assault tie in with the rest a bit better. Cake (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The house was built in the mid-1950s. I don't known if he changed the numerals sign after he moved in or not - my focus was on the sharp, almost jagged, edges of the wooden base of the sign when I initially viewed it. Investigators noted a distinct lack of "a woman's touch" to his home when they began invesitgating him in Dec 78. As for the basement, the father was a perfectionist and unwilling to allow his family to see any form of weakness or failure within him so he usually drank in private in the basement, likely as he knew his need for the bottle was a sign of weakness. He'd then ascend the stairs in whatever mood the booze brought out in him. He had left school at age 12 to work so did not have much of an education. The fact he referred to his children - John especially - as "stupid" etc. may have been a purging against those weaker than him he saw as some form of threat or potential threat by comparison to himself. The review is on hold for one week so issues will need to be addressed promptly so, hopefully, it can become FA.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Think you did well with how you added it. The jagged edges on the sign catch my eye too. It seems even more "trying to be scary with sharp corners" than the face paint. Gacy's father accusing him of faking is an interesting dynamic too. Seems harsh and like it's his fathers "perfectionism" - then again it seems like Gacy's entire adulthood is faking heart attacks and making excuses. Inclined to believe his father was insightful on this point. I tried to address all the viewer's concerns, so should be good unless you see something. Cake (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
One last Gacy query @Kieronoldham: - on one of the surveys Gacy filled out he listed his name as "John Wayne Michael Gacy". Catholics sometimes seem to have an extra name, and his son was Michael. So it seems plausible. Then again, it is rarely mentioned, and many more documents leave Michael off. I suspect you know the story behind this. Cake (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
His birth certificate lists his full name as John Wayne Gacy. No second middle name. Those "bio reviews" he sent out to those he corresponded with list his full name as John Wayne Michael Gacy. (A Confirmation name?) His son's 1966 birth certificate lists his son's name as "Michael John".--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@MisterCake, @Kieronoldham: How are we going a month later? I took a look at the page history and it's looking pretty good. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Vaticidalprophet. Nice to hear from you. I believe all the listed concerns above have been addressed by MisterCake and myself. We and others have worked hard to build and improve this article. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Amidst all the psycho clown discussion, I tried to say, as far as I could tell, all the problems were addressed. Cake (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Excellent! Very happy to pass this article :) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Vaticidalprophet. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Job with PDM

Gacy offered people a job with product data management? Im surprised he even knew what PDM software was, yet alone employed people to write such software for him. Or am i missing something here? Doris Doktordoris (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah come on, it is clear in the article the initials stand for Painting, Decorating, and Maintenance. His own joke regarding PDM was Pretty Damn Messy contractors.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
If I were clever I'd have a joke about how for him it meant Pre-Disaster Mitigation. Cake (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

In the section 1977 , it states: "Three weeks after the murder of Tommy Boling, on December 9, a 19-year-old U.S. Marine, David Talsma, disappeared after informing his mother he was to attend a rock concert in Hammond.[81][43]"

I'm requesting the Hammond hyperlink "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammond,_Illinois" either be removed or changed to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammond,_Indiana", because it is misleading at present. Hammond IL is a small village more than 170mi/270km from Chicago and not known for being a concert venue. With respect, I don't know why its page would be linked here, other than it happens to be in the state of Illinois? By contrast, Hammond IN is part of the greater Chicagoland area and is the location of the Hammond Civic Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammond_Civic_Center). On December 9th 1977, the night of David Talsma's disappearance, the bands UFO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(band) ) and Cheap Trick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheap_Trick) were playing at the Hammond Civic Center (https://imgur.com/gallery/pOD6t). This would've been the rock concert David described to his mother. Cahill (1986) simply states that "David Talsma...told his mother he was going to a rock concert in Hammond", and does not specify which Hammond that might be. 4d4M6reton (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch and additional info.. Cake (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

In the documentary John Wayne Gacy: Devil In Disguise, by Peacock, information has been put forward, stating that DNA and dental forensics has discredited the validity of the identification of Michael Marino, using the remains that were discovered. DNA from the mother, has been found to be not a match. Dental records are not a match, having tooth 15 and 16 not present before said murder. Dental records put forth by the Sheriff's office state that said teeth were present on Marino's said remains. This body was misidentified. 2601:546:C080:6BC0:79CB:693D:DCEC:12A5 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article. From what I recall, Marino's mother has refused to share these DNA results with investigators. The clothing was inconsistent with what Marino wore too. Victim 14 was discovered wearing dark corduroy trousers and "high top athletic shoes".--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Check for possible bad-faith edits

I just deleted the statement "Gacy had a small wiener" that someone had added to the introduction. As I'm editing as an IP and was allowed to make the change the edit protection on the article appears to have expired. Any custodians of this article may want to check for other potential bad faith edits. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A persistent IP vandal. This has been addressed. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

This sentence needs a comma after "daughters" so it doesn't sound like he is marrying the mom of two girls he briefly dated in high school.

"In August 1971, shortly after Gacy and his mother moved into the house, he became engaged to Carole Hoff, a divorcee with two young daughters whom he had briefly dated in high school." Doomytunes (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Made sense anyhow beforehand IMO.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Remains of Victim #5 Identified

It is reported that the previously unidentified remains of victim #5 are those of Francis Wayne Alexander who was likely murdered in 1976 or early 1977.[3] -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Resolved.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Religion

Based on the reference cited, I don’t see where it says he or his family were Catholic. Should this part be removed? 82.0.198.170 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added a ref. His family were Catholic, which is hardly a surprise given they were/are Polish.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Riverview Release Center Newton Iowa

While I was a correctional officer at the Newton Correctional Facility(NCF) Newton, IA. I saw an intake picture of John Wayne Gacy in a suit and tie in front of a placard with Riverview Release Center(RRC) Newton, IA. Now RRC is called Correctional Release Center(CRC). I don’t know the timeframe he was there or have access to the photo anymore. 207.177.103.82 (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

Add uncertainty of the identification of Michael Marino as there is DNA disproving victim 14 as being related to Marino’s mother.

sources: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a35923784/peacock-john-wayne-gacy-documentary-true-story-timeline/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-gacy-body-dna-test-marino-met-20160419-story.html Joannahami (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Important info missing

. As a Democratic precinct captain he once had his picture taken with First Lady Rosalyn Carter.[1] [2]

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.41.220.175 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/gacy237.htm
  2. ^ https://slate.com/culture/2021/03/john-wayne-gacy-devil-in-disguise-documentary-peacock.html

Interviews

It's important to point out that although he gave at least two full interviews on video, none of them were released unedited. Only small portions of his video interviews can be seen in Netflix seriesJFETE (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wayne_Gacy/Archive_3&oldid=1115356930"