Talk:Kidnapping of Colleen Stan

"Sex Slave" versus "No Sex" confusion
There is the appearance of a contradiction between "Earlier, Cameron and Janice had reached an agreement that Janice could have a baby if Cameron could have a sex slave" and "There was to be no sex with Colleen according to the agreement, but this was later to change." It is stated that Janice agreed Cameron was allowed to have a "sex slave" so how is it that "there was to be no sex with" Colleen? If the meaning is that "the original agreement was that he was to have a sex slave but that sex slave was to be another woman, not Colleen" then this needs to be stated. If there's another reason, please put that in.

Answer: Colleen was called a sex slave, but a better title would have been a torture and humiliation slave. Colleen was kidnapped in May, 1977, and sex (rape) didn't come until January, 1978.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the "facts of the case" section needs to be updated with a lot of footnotes (enough to account for the many many detailed statements). I accidentally discovered thsi page by finding the prison where Charles Manson is held..this it a heartbreaking story and I don't doubt it's true so don't want to add pain by putting in a dozen "needs citation" entries, so I won't, but whoever has the citations for all the details, should add the references in for the many many events in the "Facts of the case"

Answer: Most of the details came from the book "Colleen Stan: The Simple Gifts of Life", but I agree the facts should be referenced to a page from the book.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Noteability
Cameron Hooker is noteable since there is a book, a long web article and a Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode based on his crime. There was also an A&E documentary. MikeWren 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does Hooker have a page while Colleen Stan doesn't?
Hooker doesn't deserve it. BlueLotas 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since he didn't have multiple victims, I would tend to support having a page about Colleen Stan instead. Or perhaps we could have a page about what happened, although I'm not sure what the title should be. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The alleged victim is less significant than the alleged perpetrator. Notably there were two perpetrators here, but only one was charged.  It is most logical to have a single article, as there is, rather than articles on the individuals concerned.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

this page needs clean-up
Question: I cleaned up the article a little bit, but it could use some more clean-up. also:" causing comparisons to the Story of O "? causing comparisons? by whom? cite? Rmd1023 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer: "Story of O" was came up during the trial of Cameron Hooker. Janice Hooker reported the story was enjoyed by Cameron Hooker and used as a model in the treatment of Colleen Stan. In the closing arguments of the trial, the prosecuting attorney went over the treatment of Colleen compaired to the treatment of O.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: How exactly did hooker kidnap colleen? seems like a very important piece of the puzzle, but left out in this article. did he just drag her into his car on the street or what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.120.169 (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)  Sweet algolagnia

Answer: Hooker did not just drag Colleen into his car, Colleen was hitch-hiking and when Hooker pulled up with his wife and baby in tow she saw no reason to refuse the ride. However, she had gut instincts that something was wrong whilst travelling with them, but unfortunately for her she chose to ignore these instincts. (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just watched this case on TV - there are facts in this case (as stated in the TV program by Demand Five called Girl in a Box) which I can't understand:

Question: How would it be possible to shut someone in a very restrictive sensory deprivation box for up to two years at a time without them going mad? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-509648/Losing-mind-What-happens-48-hours-pitch-black-bunker.html

Answer: The Defense did make this argument during the trial. Why didn't Colleen go mad? Colleen claimed it was her faith in God and her will to live that kept her going. There were times when she did go mad such as the time she tried to kick her way out of the box.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: If she wasn't permitted to leave the box or wash, what happened when she menstruated? Wouldn't it have got all over the box and herself? and wouldn't it have attracted in flies (through the breathing holes) which would have laid eggs which would have turned into maggots?

Answer: With the stress of the first three months, Colleen did not menstruate. After three months, she did menstruate and was punished by Cameron Hooker for making such a mess. From then on she was allowed to keep and use sanitary napkins. As far as flies and maggots, I know of no reports of such. A mouse did enter the box once for a short period of time.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Also if you are lying in a very restrictive posture on a hard surface wouldn't you get bed sores? And wouldn't these then turn into ulcers and get infected by the maggots? And if so, wouldn't this mean that there would be scars and open wounds on the victim?

Answer: Calluses (hard tissue) did form on Colleen's hips and back, however I know of no reports of ulcers, infection, or maggots. She could move around a little in the box and could lay on her sides while in the box.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Also if you ae confined in a narrow box wouldn't this cause your muscles to waste away? This issue was raised at the trial and the prosecution said that the fact that Colleen did gardening meant that her muscles didn't waste. However that explanation does not reconcile with Colleen's statement that she was locked in the box for two years without being allowed out after her and Cameron's visit to Colleen's family.

Answer: The defense stated that if Colleen was locked in a box for three years she would trouble walking. I'm sure Colleen did lose muscle mass as she went from 130lbs to 98lbs in weight. Colleen herself never reported any trouble walking, however she did say when Cameron Hooker made her work or run, it was difficult.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Also when asked why she showed no anger towards Cameron at his trial, why did Colleen say that this was because, to survive she had to repress her emotions. Yet the photo taken by her family, when she and Cameron visited them, show her looking ecstatically happy. She explaind this by saying that she was feeling happy to be visiting her family. But if this was the case, didn't it also mean that she was capable of feeling emotion?

Answer: Cameron Hooker was a sadist who enjoyed enflicting pain on Colleen. Colleen said when she showed emotion the pain wouldn't stop. Therefore, overtime she learned to shut down and suppress her emotions to survive. On her visit home to her parents it wasn't necessary for her to hold back her emotions. She even smiled in a picture with Cameron which Colleen later explained as being like an actress on stage and doing what was expected of her.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Another thing that puzzles me is her behaviour after she left Cameron Hooker. Her first action was to ring him from the bus station to announce that she was leaving him. But why ring your kidnapper? Why not go to the police? or ring your family? And why did she never contact the police during the months that followed? and why did she continue to ring Cameron?

Answer: Part of Colleen failure to act once home was probably due to Stockholm Syndrome. After over seven years, she had been conditioned not to act or go to the police. Janice Hooker had told her there was no "Company", however Collen still had fear in the back of her mind. Also, Colleen was just happy to be home and wanted to forget and forgive. Keep in mind that the Hooker family, no matter how bad, had been Colleen's family for years. She was still emotionally connected to them and wanted to make sure Cameron Hooker or "The Company" was not coming after her which might explain her telephone calls back to Janice and Cameron Hooker. Of course a normal victim of a crime would have gone to the police immediately, but Colleen was not a victim of a normal crime.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: It would be interesting to hear from the medical profession about the medical problems likely to have arisen from her confinment for two years in the circumstances described above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariel100 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer: Colleen did have medical and mental problems in the years after she gained her freedom. The various forms of torture left her body damaged and her personality not trusting people, especially men. She lacked the youthful lifestyle of her pre-abduction years. With all of this said, Colleen considers herself normal and people who have met her would agree. Note: All of these answers have come from the book "Colleen Stan: The Simple Gifts of Life" in which Colleen describes her own life. The best medical report by a professional can be found in "Perfect Victim" a book written by the prosecuting attorney after the trial of Cameron Hooker.74.211.52.252 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pseudonym?
Question: How can it be a pseudonym when she's got her own website - www.colleenstan.com? FlaviaR (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Answer: Colleen Stan was her name during her kidnapping. Today, her last name has been changed. The website - www.colleenstan.com is not connected to Colleen Stan herself. The website promotes a book written about her from interviews with her. The name Colleen Stan was used in the book since it was the name she was using when Kidnapped.

Discussive elements
Reading the section about 23 hours in a box, the text indirectly suggests that this is possibly untrue by saying that certain questions remain unanswered eg about maggots. This is similar to people around a table discussing this story, and are not in themselves facts, even if they were used by the defence at the trial. I am removing them. 129.78.64.100 (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is "discussive elements"?  Do you mean controversy?  The comment seems to relate to questions regarding the alleged victims credibility.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

'Children kept in captivity' ?
This article was in Category:Children kept in captivity: I have removed it, since according to the article, Colleen Stan was not a child when she was kidnapped. Unless I'm missing something here, that category doesn't apply. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Adopting this article
I am really really new to Wiki and researched this case after watching a documentary on TV about Colleen Stan, and found my way to this article. I hope to add as many ref's and cite's to it as I can, along with some additional verifiable information. Maybe when I feel adequate enough at editing and writing here I can get a page going for Colleen (in response to an earlier post. I changed a couple things today but still don't feel real confident that I am doing it right. Especially filling out the cite template and understanding the difference between the different types of references. Anyone who gets a chance to look at my edits please please feel free to comment on them so that I may be able to learn and get better at it. Thanks a bunch. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sub-headings
Some sub-headings in the large section would be a good idea. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kidnapping of Colleen Stan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715071124/http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Hooker%2C_Cameron_Michael to http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Hooker%2C_Cameron_Michael
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528191857/http://piperpost.net/truetales1.htm to http://piperpost.net/truetales1.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Voice
The quote ' "A voice told me to run and jump out a window and never look back," she recalled, but she calmed her fears and went back to the car' is ambiguous. Does this mean a real voice - if so, whose? - or a "voice in her head"? was this a warning from the wife, in which case that should be stated.203.80.61.102 (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Answer: The voice was in Colleen's own head. Janice made no attempt to warn Colleen. Instead, Janice shared a candy bar (Reece Cup) with Colleen when she got back into the car. This turned out to be Colleen's last chance to escape before the kidnapping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 327th (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Current information on Hooker
Question: I was recently housed in his unit for almost a year. Would contributing information regarding his current activities and behaviors at SATF be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.35.59.31 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Answer: Yes. Any information concerning Hooker would be interesting since some people are still trying to understand the "why" behind his actions.

girl in the box - a name
It appears that the media often make names in crime cases. As a result this case has been referred to as "the girl in the box" and a "kidnapping". However another late 20th century case is also called "the girl in the box" and refers to a "kidnapping". So it is confusing when searching "girl in the box" and "kidnapping" as to which one is meant as in this guardian article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/sep/24/ursula-herrmann-germany-kidnapping-mystery

without such an article is is unclear to someone that is neither in the USA nor Germany which case is referred to. So when (as in my case) searching for Girl in the Box and Kidnapping wikipedia points to this article it is not obvious that it is a different person / case. As a result I put a see also tag at the top of the article in both cases. Disambig could be done in other ways. BUT That requires article rewriting that is very time consuming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Grammar
"According to Stan and Janice Hooker's testimonies..." sounds like Stan Hooker and Janice Hooker, not Colleen Stan and Janice Hooker. It should be "According to Colleen Stan and Janice Hooker's testimonies..." 2600:1012:B1A8:F288:783F:CDD0:E6D8:4B63 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)