Talk:Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris

Murder Mack
Bittaker bought a 1977 GMC cargo van, which they came to call 'Murder Mack', because it had no side windows in the back and a large passenger side sliding door.

I think it would make more sense to point out that they nicknamed it Murder Mack and then give a description of what it looked like (saying they nicknamed it "because of" its features makes little sense) but I am not comfortable making the change because the second half of the sentance makes no sense. I'm assuming it had no windows at all but I don't want to say that if I cannot verify it. I'll do some research if I have the time but if anyone knows for sure, please make the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.97.117 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dalton
Where does the Dalton name come from? I'm watching a documentary about this, and they claim a different person in prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.84.236.12 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a novel
This article can't be written like a crime novel as one long narrative. This is an encyclopedia and all statements of fact have to be backed up with sources. How do you know what happened in their childhoods? How do you know how they killed their victims or why they put a body on the lawn of someone's house?

This article assumes omniscience, that the author(s) of this piece just happened to know all of this is true and THIS is the way things happened. This is not an obscure crime, one of the killer is on Death Row and I'm sure that the trial was a big deal in the early 1980s. It should not be difficult to find news stories on this series of murders and provide some verification for the timeline that you came up with.

Knowing the killers' motivation (and the suggestion of an incestuous relationship between one killer and his mother?) will take more work to try to substantiate. But both of these criminals are still alive and WP:BLP applies. Bottom line? You can't say someone had sex with their mother or killed people without providing some documentation demonstrating that this is true. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus
Is this level of detail necessary? How is this encyclopedic? All this is getting way too far down into the weeds of details here, well beyond what's expected of an encyclopedia article. The stuff about their motivations and stuff, fine I suppose. This is useful for someone researching this sort of thing. The basic facts of their actions, fine, this is useful for someone researching the subject. The rest gets into prurience and someone is truly that interested in that level of detail we can point to the source material, same as we do for any other subject. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, maybe. Obviously this topic is not palatable for some. If people do not like this level of info. then they can refer to articles such as the sparse CrimeLibrary article upon these individuals. Consensus governs, right? It has been like this since c. February (see an earlier message on the talk page as to how it was previously written). As for 'level of detail' Maybe you should assess your opinion as to levels of detail after looking at articles like the Jack the Ripper one before you gauge this one. I mean that is a featured article? Sadly, the basic motivation for both was sex intermingled with domination and torture. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack the Ripper's an outlier, he's one of the most famous people in history for some reason so he's going to get an unusual level of detail but it's not a fair comparison. Besides being unpalatable, it's not helpful... for the serious researcher, there's no gain in knowing stuff like "he clasped his hand over Hall's mouth and dragged her into nearby bushes" and whatever. Nobody is going to be like "Well, I'm doing a monograph on serial killers, and I need to know the percentage who clasp their hands over the victims mouth before dragging them into shrubbery as opposed to after" and so on. And if you're writing a book or doing other serious research you're going to be going into the primary sources anyway. For the more casual reader, it's prurient. Details like "pictures he had taken of Hall both of which depicted Hall's face in expressions Norris later described as being of 'sheer terror' as she begged for her life to be spared" and so on tell us nothing useful, is too deep a level of detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia, and is sensationalist and appealing to prurient interest. We need a much more clinical approach here.


 * "If people do not like this level of info then they can refer to articles such as the sparse CrimeLibrary article upon these individual"... no, sorry, it's this that is the general-purpose encyclopedia providing the overviews of entities, and driving general-interest readers away somewhere else is exactly not what we want to be doing here. Herostratus (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, consensus governs. That was just one example upon many I could give (Jack the Ripper). I'll trim the largely superfluous info. such as the clasping of hand in the very near future (i.e. within 48 hours maximum). Rest assured, amigo. :)--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Resisting crime
'To one of these psychiatrists, Bittaker explained that his acknowledged criminal activities gave him a feeling of self-importance, although he insisted circumstantial matters increased his ability to resist committing crimes...'
 * Are you sure he wasn't pleading that he was unable to resist committing crimes? Valetude (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Double-checked the reference. The prv. contrasting word may have been an intended reference to his harking to the psychitrist of his increased alcohol and drug intake at the time.--Kieronoldham (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is sick...and unencyclopedic
This article, in all its gory detail, will no doubt be used as a template by some deranged person(s) in the future. I heartily object to the inclusion of the gory, blow-by-blow details of these crimes. The article needs to be rewritten in a way that confers the facts without the superfluous details. Seligne (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Euphemisms don't help, especially for crimes so horrific the FBI use this case as a specific textbook example to harden new recruits to the reality of what human beings are capable of committing against each other. All this information is sourced i.e. is out there already to read if you have the stomach for it and look deeply enough. Look at other cases on Wiki. like Ted Bundy or Jack the Ripper. Hardly a thousand miles from this one in content, right?--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris. 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/20080510163401/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bittaker_norris/1.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bittaker_norris/1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121121103617/http://thedevilandthedeathpenalty.com/ to http://www.thedevilandthedeathpenalty.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808051438/http://thedevilandthedeathpenalty.com/presskit.pdf to http://thedevilandthedeathpenalty.com/presskit.pdf

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) 17:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How is intercourse not rape?
Page Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris; Aftermath; states

Although Norris readily admitted that he enjoyed the intercourse with the victims, he claimed only Bittaker enjoyed the acts of torture and murder, stating: "I didn't enjoy killing—that was Lawrence [Bittaker].

How is rape intercourse? You are not quoting the Rapist/Murderer so to state that it is intercourse is a lie, false statement and degrading the victims.

Relying on implicit bias of people who think rape is intercourse is disgusting. 2601:981:4400:63B2:B14A:532D:5120:8CD8 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the letter referenced it states "the sex ... I'm guilty of enjoying that". It is his self-absolving mindset. Everyone knows what you're implying. Needs adjusting.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe this article should be edited and locked.
It is far too detailed to be actually informative and borders torture porn. We do not need to have a transcript of what the Shirley tape contained, much less what the perpetrators found of it. This is an example of unencyclopedic behavior bordering on true crime sensationalism. 2804:389:EC:402D:0:5:35A7:F001 (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This was discussed several years back on here. It's all referenced and easy to find online in text and video and audio format. Nothing is gratuitous or sensationalistic. If people choose to read about individuals so brutal the FBI use material regarding their crimes to desensitize academy recruits they are hardly going to read pleasant details.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to forget people reading the Wikipedia's article on these issues are not trying to get into the FBI. Exactly because all this info is so eadily accessible I think this article should probably be more straightforward. For one, I do not believe there is a reason to state a killer's IQ, but it's an easily digestible information.
 * But triggering content that goes into detail about how a girl got tortured and repeatedly raped does not feel very encyclopedic. There is a reason it is set apart for FBI training; there is a reason why the general populace would rather not read these things.
 * As for the lock, I just think it'd be nice to avoid vandalism. 177.74.190.156 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All I'll say is the article is well-referenced and I'll reiterate it can all be found easily elsewhere. Perfectly amalgamated from multiple, reputable, reliable sources, which we seek out. All areas are covered. The individuals are infamous for the crimes; the crimes need to be covered.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thirty or forty-five to life?
The article says that Norris was sentenced to 45 years to life, but the same section says that he would be eligible in 2010, which would mean that he was sentenced to 30 years to life. I changed this, but it was reverted, so I decided to bring it to attention here and maybe get an answer. Comitialbulb561 (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Parole eligibility. He had possibility of parole ("In return for Norris's agreeing to plead guilty and to testify against Bittaker, prosecutors had agreed to seek neither the death penalty nor life without parole at the upcoming sentencing hearing.") It is mentioned in two books and some of the references. One is here.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)