Talk:Robert Chambers (criminal)

Law
New York doesn't have a three strikes law. I deleted the inaccurate text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.100.52 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

School
Note: The article mentioned "York School in Manhattan". Yet, the only York School in Wikipedia is York School (California) (which used to be just York School till I renamed it). So, I removed the link. I don't think its that important to the article, but I just don't want a misplaced link. --Rob 14:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is York Preparatory School.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Murderer?
Is it proper that Chambers is prominently described and also categorized as a "murderer", even though he was never convicted of murder? AxelBoldt 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. The term murderer should not be used so as to avoid liability for libel.--Bibliophylax 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The legal use of murderer in this case can be debated. link manslaughter in the first degree. Techincally, manslaughter as far as Mr. Chamber's conviction goes is an intent kill, but doesn't constitute murder because of mitigating circumstances (according to the New York Penal Code - There is no pretext of self defence in this definition.) Having said that this assumes that the current NY Penal Code definition hasn't changed drastically since the Mr. Chambers was sentenced.

I assume the the emotional disturbance that the DA cut a deal with Mr. Chambers was due to the defence's reference to alcohol consumption.

So as far as a reference to killing, yes he can be considered a murderer. Manslaughter simply reduces the liablity for the murder due to the application of a defence for some sort of mitigating circumstance. --targeter 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the law itself (that targeter is referring to above), talking about extreme emotional disturbance, says that such acts "do not constitute murder." Under defamation law, Wikipedia AND individual editors could potentially be liable for using the word murderer. It would best be avoided.--Bibliophylax 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to targeter, this is completely false. Manslaughter is by definition not murder.  Murder requires specific intent, and manslaughter doesn't.  It doesn't just decrease liability or act as a "defense" under New York law--it is a different offense with different elements.  Obviously, Robert Chambers killed someone.  But use of the term "murder

License
The article says that Chambers was stopped in his car for driving with a suspdended driver's license. I'm not sure how that can happen, or whether the correct information is available.


 * I am confused by your post. Why do you say that you are not sure how this could happen?  That is, that he was stopped in his car for driving with a suspended driver's license. That is quite commonplace.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ireland
According to http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/park/4.html, his mother is from County Leitrim, which is in northern Ireland but not Northern Ireland. I'm changing it accordingly. —Angr 09:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:American murderers
I've not seen anything in the WP:MOS that linking to a category is against any policy/guideline. I have however seen mention of why American murderers should NOT be linked: Only make links that are relevant to the context. The logic of linking to the United States and murderers is flawed, while a reader may be interested in other murderers it's less clear why they'd want to know about the history of his country? On the other hand it seems much more likely that most readers would be more interested in other American murderers. Anynobody 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories belong at the bottom of the page, not linked in-line. Link if it suits your fancy, but do it in the right place. - Nunh-huh 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please show me where it says that? Anynobody 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's by convention (i.e. consensus). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category. If you've seen categories sprinkeled about in other articles rather than added to the end, please point me towards them. - Nunh-huh 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You linked to WP:CAT which says what categories are, how they work, and incidentally how to link to a category in an article without adding it to said category; WP:CAT. It doesn't say links to a category inside the article itself are improper. You may want to read that page again. Anynobody 05:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably missed the part where it says that by convention, the links are added at the end. In any case, you're going at this backwards: pages describe policy by describing what the actual practice is, they don't dictate policy. If what is practiced is inadequately covered by a policy page, it's the policy page that changes, not the practice. I don't think you'll find many (perhaps no) articles that contain categories in their first sentences. - Nunh-huh 05:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You probably missed the part where it says that by convention, the links are added at the end. You're right I did, and so did my browser's search feature, since it doesn't appear to say that. Searching for the word convention (If you use Firefox it's +f) on that page none of the instances where it appears says anything about NOT being able to link to a category. It does discuss naming conventions and the idea that the guideline itself is a convention, but doesn't say ... the links are added at the end. (You do understand the difference between a link to a category and adding the article to a category is right? The links at the very bottom show what categories the article is listed in addition to linking to said categories.)

Before we discuss my interpretation being backwards lets ensure the guideline says what you think it says. Anynobody 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Try the link I actually gave, rather than the one you mistook it for. It's not WP:CAT, it's Help:Category. Now, since you've avoided it so far, can you point me to other articles in which people have placed links to categories in the first sentence? Is this something you thought up all by yourself, or is someone else doing it? - Nunh-huh 08:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You may not have known it, but you did link to WP:CAT...take a close look at Help:Category towards the top of the page where it says it's a meta help file. Also note the highlighted shortcut leading to the guideline. Anynobody 08:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? I gave a direct link to the page I was referencing, and it wasn't WP:CAT, no matter how easily it can be reached from the referenced page. I take it you don't know of any instances of anyone other than you putting a category link in the first sentence of articles? - Nunh-huh 11:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is Help:Category is an explanation of what the MediaWiki software can do. Consensus issues are identified by messages like this: Or this: Since WP:CAT does have consensus, you should be looking at it not Help:Category. Anynobody 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it then that you don't know of any instances of anyone other than you putting a category link in the first sentence of articles? - Nunh-huh 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have, it was in a victim's article a couple of months ago. The article, as I recall, described the killer as an American murderer.

However it should be noted that because something isn't performed often does not imply consensus against it. (Besides if you really want to argue that it's implied that editors should not link to categories then why would both pages explain how to do it and then not prohibit doing so? In other words, why doesn't it say: "Here's how to link to a category, but you shouldn't do this..."). Anynobody 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The principle of least surprise is that links shouldn't take the reader someplace unexpected. Category links such as you placed take the reader someplace unexpected, while they don't, if placed properly, at the bottom, where they are marked as categories. That the particular page you've chosen to heed doesn't explicitly forbid an idea doesn't mean it's not a bad idea. I suppose the way to find out if other editors agree with you is to continue to place such links and see how often they are reverted. I gather that you don't recall the specific article in which you saw the only other instance of this aberration, so we can see if it was reverted. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, the article is about an American murderer. A link to other American murderers shouldn't be a surprise. A surprise is a link to the United States and murderer.

Also "the principle of least surprise" isn't mentioned on WP:CAT (or Help:Category), WP:CONTEXT, or Manual of Style (links).

Finally, "surprise" is a different argument than your original point about consensus and convention. Does this mean you acknowledge that linking to categories is not prohibited? Anynobody 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A link to a list not labeled as such is a surprise. Whether you can find it mentioned or not, the principle of least surprise has been a standard of linking here since the beginning. Again, if you want to indulge your mistaken impression that what isn't mentioned on guideline pages or policy somehow is invalid, feel free to make your changes and see if they last. Wikilawyering is not going to get you the answer, nor are specious mistatements about what I "acknowledge". If you have a serious doubt about the propriety of disguised links to categories, formulate a request for comments. - Nunh-huh 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of having policies and guidelines is to define what is/is not appropriate. You say it's not appropriate to link to a category in an article, respectfully unless you can cite a policy or guideline this is only your opinion. (Saying that something should be applied to Wikipedia whether or not it's listed in the rules is a bit arrogant.)

If you think the idea of least surprise should be applied to what happens on Wikipedia then I'd suggest bringing it up on either the WP:CAT or WP:MOS-L. I agree that unrelated topics should not be linked to, but to say Robert Chambers is unrelated to the category of American murderers is nonsense.

Have you looked at Category:American murderers? It does say what one must do to be on the list, and again since Robert Chambers is in fact an American murderer linking to a list of other American murderers isn't a surprise. Linking to Category:Fictional murderers would be a surprise. Anynobody 01:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that policy is made on policy pages. It isn't. It's described there. And we have no conflict over your category, only where it belongs, so your last comment is irrelevant. - - Nunh-huh 02:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's both made and described there, check out Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or Wikipedia talk:Categorization. At any given time a discussion on these talk pages could result in a change in the policy/guideline. Wikipedians make the policy/guidelines(P/G) (for the most part) on the P/G talk pages and they are described on the P/G pages themselves.

If am I wrong, where do you think P/Gs are made? Anynobody 07:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (PS I'm not asking to be spiteful, seriously if I am wrong I'd like to know the correct answer.) Anynobody 10:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When "policy pages" differ from preferred practice, it's the pages that get changed, not the practice. See the recent dustup over spoilers. - Nunh-huh 12:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I've noticed it too, and you'll also notice the discussion being carried on is how consensus is formed. The point is there isn't a consensus on linking to a category, if you think there should be then of course you can start a discussion to get consensus for your opinion on preferred practices.

If it is indeed a preferred practice as you say, pointing to a P/G that says so should be easy. Anynobody 02:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You miss the point entirely. There are lots of practices that have not been documented in policy or guideline pages. The only time things get put there is when someone departs from them. The pages are not legislation, they're description. So if you decide to persist in your unconventional linking, I am sure that addenda will be made to the required pages. Exactly what those addenda will say will depend on whether others agree with or disagree with your opinion on the matter. - Nunh-huh 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, you're saying that the P/Gs are written for times when an editor departs from convention. If what you are saying is true then please answer these questions: Your point is based solely on your opinion. Your opinion is that the P/Gs are updated as new editors do something against convention. The reason this is your opinion is because you have nothing to back it up with from Wikipedia. The reason we have P/Gs is so that editors will have an idea of what is and is not encouraged behavior, in other words they set the conventions. To prove it's your opinion lets look at the evidence so far: Anynobody 05:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The conventions aren't discussed anywhere you can link me to or copy/paste here. Since the idea of Wikipedia is to invite anyone to participate who wants to, it stands to reason that people of different levels of experience will be contributing under different conventions. So the preferred convention should be listed somewhere. Why would something important like conventions not be discussed anywhere?
 * Forgetting the fact that it's a help page like I pointed out above, your proof doesn't say anything about linking to categories except how to do it: Help:Category. Why does it tell us how, yet not say anything about the conventions you are talking about?

Yes, your very pretty table proves you like looking through policy pages and I don't. Clearly the solution is to get the opinions of other editors rather than listing pages which you think support your opinion. Please make a request for comment, since clearly nothing I can say to you has any impact. - Nunh-huh 11:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would think the previous discussion belongs in the "policy" article, not here, since it is not really related to the Chambers article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.173.78 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Title: Robert Chambers (1966 — )
The present article title is one of the holdovers of Wikipedia's enthusiastic amateur early days: "Robert Chambers (killer)" indeed! The common convention in biographical entries, familiar to those who have looked into some, would be Robert Chambers (1966 — ) --Wetman 05:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC) The article title should stay as is. In the alternative, I'd support changing "killer" to "criminal" since his notability now extends beyond the "preppy murder."--Bibliophylax 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Familiar to whom? Maybe those who've looked into dusty library card catalogs, but not to those who browse Wikipedia.  It's quite common to use a parenthetical remark to distinguish among different articles.  We don't just have Robert Chambers (killer), we have Robert Chambers (oarsman).  Why do we do this?  Because it is the official naming convention in Wikipedia.  Why is it the official convention?  Because it is a lot of more useful to general interest readers and web searchers who aren't going to know the year of birth of the person they are looking for, but will know his claim to fame.
 * ✅ Jim Michael (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Motive of the murder
What was it? Imagine Reason (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Never determined. Prosecutors did not have a motive that they could offer up at his trial.  However, on a TV interview, the prosecutor said that her best guess was that Chambers and Levin were engaged in a heated argument.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Police have speculated that it might have been a robbery, as Chambers had a reputation for robbing the girls whom he had dated. On the night she was killed, Jennifer was wearing expensive earrings, and had a lot of money on her person. When her body was found the next morning, her earrings were missing, as was her cash.--Splashen (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Chambers (criminal). 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/20071026065357/http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/park/7.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/park/7.html

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) 02:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The diary
The article says Jennifer Levin did not keep a "sex diary." What exactly does this mean? Does this mean she had no diary that discussed sex at all? If that's correct, how do we know this for certain, and furthermore, why was the defense so eager to get access to this book if it didn't discuss sex at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suziewang123 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * From the article: The defense sought to depict Levin as a promiscuous woman who kept a "sex diary"; however, no such diary existed. Levin, instead, kept a small notebook that contained the names and phone numbers of her friends and notations of ordinary appointments. Such tactics were met with public outrage, with protesters (some calling themselves "Justice for Jennifer") demonstrating outside the courtroom.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Quotes
The quote: "Doesn't surprise me. I always believed his problem with drugs and alcohol would get him in trouble again. He's had the opportunity in prison to detox and take college courses, to straighten out his life, but that clearly is of no interest to him. He's learned nothing in the last 20 years." had a "citation needed" tag that I removed. The quote is in the citation.

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Early life
Robert Chambers was raised by his mother, Phyllis (née Shanley), a nurse who emigrated from County Leitrim, Ireland, to New York City. He was an altar boy and attended a series of prep schools on scholarship, since his mother could not afford to pay private school tuition. Chambers did not prosper in an environment in which many of his classmates were considerably better off than he was, and had problems with poor grades and antisocial behavior, including stealing and drug abuse. Among the schools he attended were Saint David's School, Choate-Rosemary Hall, the Browning School and York Preparatory School.

Arrest
Police were given Chambers' name by patrons at Dorrian's Red Hand, who had seen him leaving with Levin. When authorities arrived to question Chambers at his home, he had fresh scratches on his face and arms, which he initially said were "cat scratches". He was taken in for questioning.

Chambers changed his story several times: "his cat had been declawed"; he "didn't part from Levin immediately upon leaving the bar"; "she had parted from him to purchase cigarettes" (it was later discovered that Levin did not smoke). In the final version of his confession, he claimed that some time after he and Levin had left the bar, she had asked him for "rough sex", tied the 6 ft Chambers' hands with her panties, hurt his genitals as she stimulated him, and that she had been killed accidentally when he freed his hands and pushed her off him.

Confronted with this explanation, Assistant District Attorney Steve Saracco said: "I've been in this business for a while, and you're the first man I've seen raped in Central Park". The rape scenario was considered to be highly unlikely in light of the fact that Chambers was more than a foot taller than the 5 ft Levin, and at 220 lb, he was almost double her weight.

Trial
The case popularized the strategy later colloquially termed the "rough sex defense". The defense sought to depict Levin as a promiscuous woman who kept a "sex diary"; however, no such diary existed. Levin, instead, kept a small notebook that contained the names and phone numbers of her friends and notations of ordinary appointments. Such tactics were met with public outrage, with protesters (some calling themselves "Justice for Jennifer") demonstrating outside the courtroom.

With the jury deadlocked for nine days, a plea bargain was struck in which Chambers pleaded guilty to the lesser crime of manslaughter in the first degree, and to one count of burglary for his thefts in 1986. He was sentenced to serve five to fifteen years, with the sentence for burglary being served concurrently.

Aftermath
In April 1988, the tabloid television program A Current Affair broadcast a home video showing Chambers at a party when he was free on bail. He was shown in the video playing with four lingerie-clad girls, choking himself with his hands while making loud gagging noises, and twisting a Barbie doll's head off, saying in falsetto: "My name is ... Oops! I think I killed it."

Chambers served most of his 15-year sentence at Auburn State Prison, but was later moved to Clinton Correctional Facility due to several infractions, which cost him all his time off for good behavior. He assaulted a correctional officer and was cited repeatedly for weapons and drug infractions, some of which resulted in additional criminal charges. Ellen Levin, Jennifer Levin's mother, also petitioned to have his parole denied. Nearly five years of Chambers' term were served in Detention/Segregation.

After leaving prison, Chambers settled in Dalton, Georgia, with his girlfriend Shawn Kovell, who had appeared in the Barbie doll video made before his sentencing. The two lived there for eight to nine months. He found a job at the Pentafab dye factory. Chambers and Kovell moved to an East 57th Street Sutton Place, Manhattan, apartment in New York City, when the death of Kovell's mother in late 2003 left it vacant. Chambers found a job at a limousine company in Queens, and later in a New Jersey sports trophy manufacturer's engraving plant.

Drug charges
Shortly before Thanksgiving 2004, Chambers was stopped in his Saab for driving with a suspended driver's license on Harlem River Drive at 139th Street. A search of the car he was driving found glassine envelopes containing an unknown substance. Chambers was charged on November 29, 2004, with possession of heroin and cocaine, driving with a suspended license, and driving a car without a valid inspection sticker.


 * That makes sense, but currently the article is incoherent. I tried to read it and couldn't understand what was going on at all. There are, for example, currently multiple references to "the bar", which was never previously mentioned, and appearances by people who were never introduced. Is this material worth salvaging, or should I go ahead with some WP:BB text removal until someone wants to properly rewrite this narrative? I don't want to reduce the page too much if it will make it harder for someone to fix this text and return it to the article, but I also dislike reading and writing about true crime so I'm not interested in spending the time to create an elabourate well-cited narrative to this page. - Astrophobe  (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I failed to fix the surrounding text when removing the uncited portions. I've now corrected it by providing some contextual explanation to the "bar" passage. If you see other areas where this can be fixed, then by all means do so. But another way to fix this is to find citations for the uncited material that I moved here. Thanks for presenting your critical viewpoint. :) Nightscream (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Rough sex or sexual assault?
We seem to have a contradiction in this article. On the one hand, most of the purely secondary sources say that Chambers claimed the murder happened accidentally during "rough sex" (sometimes stated explicitly to be consensual). On the other hand, most of the sources that directly quote individuals involved in the case at the time, including both this one which quotes his original interrogation directly, and several which quote the prosecutor of the case, say that Chambers claimed the murder happened because Levin sexually assaulted him.

For my part, I think that the direct quotes from the interrogation and from the prosecutor make it extremely likely that the "rough sex" version is a misinterpretation of the facts, and so I think we should swap the article over to that version. Loki (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Any discrepancy like that would have to be resolved through sources. We cannot add or keep material based on our interpretations, or our views of what others have misinterpreted. Nightscream (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but there are sources which support both interpretations. The prosecutor is a primary source, and the sources that quote her are secondary sources. The source we have that quotes the interrogation is a secondary source quoting a primary source. It's a source conflict. Loki (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you provide those links/sources here so we know which ones you're referring to? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can do you one better. Of all the sources in the article that describe the event, here's how they describe it, in rough order from most to least detailed:
 * This Gotham City Insider source says that he claimed that some time after he and Levin had left the bar she sexually assaulted him, and also quotes the prosecutor saying "I've been in this business for a while, and you're the first man I've seen raped in Central Park."
 * This CourtTV Crime Library source quotes the prosecutor again, and also quotes the original interrogation with Chambers at length, in which he says quite clearly "She was having her way with me. Without my consent."
 * This People article describes it as an "aggressive sexual encounter".
 * The New York Times consistently characterizes it as "rough sex", "sexual relations" or "sex" with no implication that it was non-consensual.
 * This WCBS News article also characterizes it as "rough sex".
 * The New York Post also consistently describes it as "rough sex". (Side note, the New York Post is red on WP:RSP, so we really ought to look for a better source).
 * The New York Daily News describes it as "rough sex" as well.
 * My contention here is that the details in the detailed sources outweigh the brief characterizations in the less detailed sources. Per WP:NOTOR, If reliable sources exist that show that another apparently reliable source is demonstrably factually incorrect, the factually incorrect material should be removed. Well, this is a claim about what Chambers said, and we know what he said because one of the reliable sources quotes him at length during the police interrogation when he would have allegedly claimed this. Furthermore, that source also quotes the prosecutor also saying he claimed it was sexual assault, and a separate source quotes the prosecutor saying the same thing, which both increases the reliability of the CourtTV source and further proves that "rough sex" is an inaccurate characterization of what he claimed, despite so many media organizations repeating it. There seems to be some sort of citogenesis going on here, with reporters backing themselves up with the reporting of other reporters without looking at the original court documents. Loki (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I notice the Gotham Insider is a blog on Blogger. There are no indications that it is written or edited by any credentialed or reputable journalist. It also publishes contributions from users, without any indication of editorial discretion, which may violate WP:USERG. On its About page, it says:

"Gotham City Insider (thats us!) welcomes your emails, tips, quips, stories and ideas. Anonymity will be assumed and guarded on all inside info, don’t worry. Just know that when you do email us, the correspondence becomes our property and we reserve the right to print and plagiarise it as content at our discretion unless you specifically tell us otherwise. We try like hell to respond to every email, but sometimes things fall through the cracks so don’t bitch. And chances are if you send us something we dig, we’ll just post it up and forget to tell you. Just check the site often, we’ll run out of ideas eventually and yours will get some sun."

This hardly screams "editorial care", so I think we can disregard that publication as it would not pass WP:IRS.

However, this doesn't mean that the content should be dismissed, if it can be found elsewhere, and indeed, I found it here, here, here (though I'm not sure how well Inside Edition passes WP:IRS). That last one also mentions that he changed his story after he was arrested. So does this Good Housekeeping article.

So how do we reconcile the accounts? Well, I don't think they're really that contradictory. It appears to me that prosecutor Steve Saracco's remarks were merely more explicit characterizations of Chamber's vague allusions. The Good Housekeeping article, for example says:

"Throughout his interrogation, Robert reportedly changed his story several times. First, it was his cat who had inflicted the scars on his face — but then, he began to admit to having been with Jennifer the night before. Ultimately, he settled on a story in which he said Jennifer asked him for 'rough sex,' and he accidentally killed her while trying to push her off when she began hurting him."

The passage "push her off when she began hurting him" appears to be an indication that what Chambers claims she was doing at the time was not consensual. That's where the "rape" comments appears to come from; Chambers simply didn't use that word, since obviously, people, especially men, are not as inclined to explicitly admit to such a thing. This article should simply related what most sources in general say, and at best, maybe include the quoted remark by Saracco, making it clear that it's a characterization. Nightscream (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, first of all, thank you very much for finding those sources!
 * Second, according to the first book you linked, Chambers did use the word rape: what prompts that quote by the prosecutor is Chambers saying I'm sure you've heard of other men being raped, other men being tied up. And even before that he's quite clear that the encounter was not consensual.
 * Third, we already do include the quote by the prosecutor. What I'm trying to say is that we should not (for example) say in the lead that He claimed the death was accidental and the result of rough sex, and instead say He claimed the death was accidental and the result of Levin attempting to sexually assault him. Based on more detailed accounts of the interrogation, that's actually what he claimed, not "rough sex". Loki (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification. I would tweak your suggested passage for the Lead by saying, "Chambers changed his story during the course of the ensuring investigation, ultimately claiming that Levin's death was the accidental result of him pushing her off of him when she caused him pain as she sexually assaulted him." How's that? Nightscream (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. I'll go change it. Loki (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I didn't realize that there was a Wikipedia article for the term Rough sex murder defense that was not only wikilinked in the Lead, but that the Chambers case is referenced in that article, with citations. For this reason, I don't think the term should be removed entirely, but that we should incorporate that term into the summary. I've gone and tweaked the Lead to that effect. I also replaced the Gotham Insider cite in the article body with better sources. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Narcissists never change
He killed to get what he wanted and couldn't have, and his motive is evil. He doesn't know what it means to be loved or how to love. His motive is evil. I'm not opposed to euthanizing a rabid dog. 2601:548:4204:9F70:5DA2:DA67:A142:CDE7 (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)