Talk:Death of Nancy Benoit rumour posted on Wikipedia hours prior to body being found

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Microchip08 in topic The IP


This article was posted on Reddit.



The edits were found on Wikipedia and bawolff traced the first edit. Still working on the second. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bawolff traced the second IP address. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is a - potentially - speculative article, it is important that the paragraph noting that the Benoit article has been the target of rumour and promotion is retained. This keeps the balance well enough (i.e. covers the fact we're reporting on rumour-mongering) and allows it to be {{publish}}ed. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think the OR notes need to be far more expansive. --SVTCobra 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I added the info from Cary Bass, after a brief interview in IRC. Cary Bass is a Wikimedian. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, Cary is not just a Wikimedian. Cary works in the WMF office and has fielded several calls from the press on this. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply



Is that accurate? Was it before it occurred or before police entered the property? --SVTCobra 08:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

They found the bodies at 2:30 pm or so monday (eastern) I would think that it was 14 hours before that? this is why I need help researching :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
the WP edit was done at 00:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC). --SVTCobra 10:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply



Listen the facts are all wrong. She most likely died Friday - so way before the edit. I am at work - not sure if I can fix it myself. --SVTCobra 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you clarify this a little? There was extensive verification of the timeline and when the edits took place. Yes, it is likely she died before the edit was made, but her death was not officially known. I see no errors in the article, and sources on the related news establish all the other facts. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
And why is this unpublished?? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think I have taken care of it. She died Friday, that is more than just a little before these edits were made. The opening paragraph claimed that they were before her death, as did the title. --SVTCobra 16:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
It has been republished after fixes were made if you take a look. --SVTCobra 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I hope that is clear that I only unpublished until material errors were fixed. --SVTCobra 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let's calculate


I don't follow the calculation: the edit was made at 6:01 4:01 a.m. UTC. Fayette County, Georgia is UTC -5. The police entered 2:30 p.m., which in UTC is 9:30 am. So do I have it wrong or is there a 3 and a half hour gap? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The edit was 4:01 a.m. UTC. Georgia is UTC-4 in the summer. 2:30 p.m. is 6:30 p.m. UTC. Yes, I think you got it wrong. --SVTCobra 16:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I get it know, quite confusing! Thanks. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Timezones suck. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

How was this found?


"Wikinews has learned through an investigation..." => what kind? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Someone pointed us to the IP edits on the Wikipedia article. You should attend more Cabal (TINC) meetings. ;) --Brian McNeil / talk 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
And then I think somebody told Bawolff on IRC. --SVTCobra 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
The wikipedia admins found it. see the Talk:Professional_wrestler_Chris_Benoit_and_family_found_dead#IRC_-_wikipedia_knows_he_is_dead_to_fast talk of the original article about his death. Bawolff 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am the person who broke the story on the Chris Benoit page. Read the thread here. Notice I ended up being blocked for the thread by an admin whose actions need to be reviewed. 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you look at all the other references to this story on the Admin pages or elsewhere on wikipedia, they all start to occur about 60-90 minutes after my post on the Chris Benoit talk page. I am responsible for this story. And I got blocked for it. Sometimes you wonder if people here know what they are doing. 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

We're not the same admins, and the process of becoming a wikinews administrator is similar to that of wikipedia but with differences. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Like I said on the wikipedia page, I am not concerned with the admin. It's just when I see people post (as you did above) that "someone" pointed to the edits, that "someone" is me. It wouldnt be hard to link to the thread where the discover is made or otherwise give credit where it is due. 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

POV speculation


I removed this bit: [1] becuase for one, it is not likely, it is unknown. We cannot speculate on something we have no idea about. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply



...take a look at the frontpage of This is currently their lead story. --+Deprifry+ 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

And they better quote us or there will be a heap of trouble. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
What trouble? They apparently called Carry Bass and asked for an explanation... what do you suggest? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, they can stop saying 'exclusive' on their front page, because it isn't. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks to DragonFire and our Wikinewsreports blog, we're on Google News too: Google News. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Good :) maybe that will get some attention :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just emailed Fox News asking them to remove the "Exclusive" tag. Thunderhead 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
They appear to have taken the tag down. JoshuaZ 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Never mind, it is still up on the main page. JoshuaZ 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mentions in the Other Press

ImpactWrestling even links back to the Wikinews article under "read more"! --SVTCobra 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • actually an AP Press copyright). (No mention of wikinews)

The IP


According to an article on pwinsider (which I can not link to but is here:, which will need some verifying I'm sure, the IP of the first anon editor doesn't trace back to Connecticut, but somewhere in New York. - bdve 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC) [copied from other page] That address resolves to Hicksville, NY, NOT Stamford, CT

It is possible this is a dynamic IP address. Bawolff 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think that all Optimum Online IP addresses will show Hicksville, NY. That is the company address. I am an Optimum Online user, and nowhere near Hicksville and I just ran my IP and it came back as Hicksville, as well. Obviously, IP's can be resolved further than the corporate address of the provider, but I do not know how to do that. --SVTCobra 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
The address does resolve to Stamford on most other services and IP traces. You can google some IP search resources and see for yourself. --SVTCobra 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
The IP address traced to "" (assuming that's Stamford, CT) when I tried:
This is a visual trace of the IP Address in question

THE ABOVE IP ADDRESS COMES FROM A CABLEVISION ISP SUBSCRIBER. The last bounce route is in Stamford, CT. This means that the user relies on this Router for his IP. I have run a multi-trace and found this router to have central designation. I will not provide any more information.

Then why tell us at all? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what all this is about but I checked this IP just now and it is located in Piscataway, New Jersey. I thought you cannot change IP address locations. Also it appears another person or possibly the same person as part of the same prank DID come back to change it again. Because the IP address came on a little later to give some false sources to the exclamation about Nancy's death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Of course you can change IP locations. They're owned, in blocks, by ISPs. They can be bought, sold, reallocated, and relocated. In the seven years since this article was published, it wouldn't be surprising if an IP address had moved from one continent to another.
  • At the time this was published, Cary Bass was handling press queries at the Wikimedia Foundation. As a Wikimedian, he had CheckUser privileges — not needed in this case — and certainly has the technical chops to geolocate an IP address.
Is is 'sadly lacking' in local Original Reporting notes? Well, yes. Unless someone still has the various IRC logs, traces, scans and so-on, we don't have the paperwork to back it up. However, rather than report that our findings verified what Fox news ran with they mis-credited it to us as "According to a report [...]". --Brian McNeil / talk 07:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
(Surely it's unlikely to change continents, as the RIRs (RIPE and friends) almost never give their blocks back to IANA.) Microchip08 (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply



Shouldn't it say "hung himself" instead of "hanged himself"?

Generally the past tense of hang is hanged when you refer to killing something, and hung when you just hang something up. Bawolff 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's not just generally, it is proper English. "Strictly, the past tense of hang is hanged in the sense of "to be executed by suspension from the neck" and "to execute by suspension from the neck" and hung for all other meanings. However, this rule is not uniformly understood or observed." - Wiktionary:Hang. --SVTCobra 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Verb; Hang, past tense is hanged; past participle (means that its being used with HAVE) is hung. My prof. pontificated on this quite alot providing it as an example of the English language changing over time. The above grammar has changed and now hung is being applied to tapestries and juries, and hanged is being applied to people. So, right now could be matter of taste. I would say hung if there is any form of have/has preceding the hanging. Ie Benoit hanged himself, vs Benoit has hung himself.Suiciderun 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Other Edits from


TheIP address had also removed vulgar comments about Chavo Guerro, Jr earlier in June 2007. The person had also modified the "Government" section of "Naugatuck, Connecticut" in May 2007 adding the names "Marc Dagz" and "Visar Tasimi" as mayor and deputy mayor. I would be interested to know who those people are.

Wasn't there a third named mention?? Bennet or something. Why is this such a big secret??-- 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request of Info


Could someone please e-mail me at [redacted]? I would like to get some info to do a story on my site. Thanks. 02:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

What kind of info? (Note also emailing this). Bawolff 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I posted the comment we are all talking about and I am here to explain that it was A HUGE COINCIDENCE and nothing more


Hey everyone. I am here to talk about the wikipedia comment that was left by myself. I just want to say that it was an incredible coincidence. Last weekend, I had heard about Chris Benoit no showing Vengeance because of a family emergency, and I had heard rumors about why that was. I was reading rumors and speculation about this matter online, and one of them included that his wife may have passed away, and I did the wrong thing by posting it on wikipedia to spite there being no evidence. I posted my speculation on the situation at the time and I am deeply sorry about this, and I was just as shocked as everyone when I heard that this actually would happen in real life. It is one of those things that just turned into a huge coincidence. That night I found out that what I posted, ended up actually happening, a 1 in 10,000 chance of happening, or so I thought. I was beyond wrong for posting wrongful information, and I am sorry to everyone for this. I just want everyone to know it was stupid of me, and I will never do anything like this again. I just posted something that was at that time a piece of wrong unsourced information that is typical on wikipedia, as it is done all the time. Nonetheless, I feel incredibly bad for all the attention this got because of the fact that what I said turned out to be the truth. Like I said it was just a major coincidence, and I will never vandalize anything on wikipedia or post wrongful information. I've learned from this experience. I just can't believe what I wrote was actually the case, I've remained stunned and saddened over it. I wish not to reveal my identity so I can keep me and my family out of this since they have nothing to do with anything. I am not connected to WWE or Benoit at all in anyway. I am from Stamford as the IP address shows, and I am just an everyday individual who posted a wrongful remark at the time that received so much attention because it turned out to actually happen. I will say again I didn't know anything about the Benoit tragedy, it was a terrible coincidence that I never saw coming. I hope this puts an end to this speculation that someone knew about the tragedy before it was discovered. It was just a rumor that I had heard about from other people online who were speculating what the family emergency Chris was attending to. I made a big mistake by posting this comment on his page, since all we had were what we thought was going on and nothing about what actually was going on yet, and sadly what happened turned out to be my speculation at the time. I assumed wiki would edit out my information, which they did, so thats why I didn't go back to edit it out myself. I know I keep repeating it but I feel terrible about the mainstream coverage this has received, since it was only a huge coincidence and a terrible event that should of never happened. I am not sure how to react, as hearing about my message becoming a huge part of the Benoit slayings made me feel terrible as everyone believes that it is connected to the tragedy, but it was just an awful coincidence. That is all I have to say, I will never post anything here again unless it is pure fact, no spam nothing like that. Thank you, and let this end this chapter of the Benoit story, and hopefully one day we will find out why this tragedy ever actually happened.

I know I keep repeating it but I feel terrible about the mainstream coverage this has received, since it was only a huge coincidence and a terrible event that should of never happened. I am not sure how to react, as hearing about my message becoming a huge part of the Benoit slayings made me feel terrible as everyone believes that it is connected to the tragedy, but it was just an awful coincidence. That is all I have to say, I will never post anything here again unless it is pure fact, no spam nothing like that. Thank you, and let this end this chapter of the Benoit story, and hopefully one day we will find out why this tragedy ever actually happened.

Would you be willing to do an interview? Bawolff 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm sorry but I would prefer not to do an interview, I really just want to put all this behind us. I made a mistake and I'm sorry, I know I've said that a million times but today has just been a bad day with this getting all this mainstream coverage even though it was just a huge coincidence. If an interview is deemed necessary, than I will only do it under the condition that I remain anonymous out of respect for my privacy. But really I would rather not do one, all that needs to be known is that this situation was blown out of proportion, though I can understand why.

I'm just still in shock that what I posted turned out to be true, and I feel awful that my post turned into a huge story, when it was only speculation on my part. Sorry I'm writing a lot, I just want to move on from this mistake and I hope you understand this. Thank you.

I also want to clarify again that the comment wasn't meant to be a prank, but just speculation on my part from some rumors that I had heard on the internet about the family emergency that caused Chris to miss the pay per view Vengeance. It was stupid of me to post, and I regret it, but I did and that won't change, but as long as everyone knows that it was simply a coincidence and nothing more then we can move on from this. Also, I'd like to apologize for my other wiki "updates" on other pages as they were immature and dumb, but I know I'm not the only one who has done this, but nonetheless I will never post anything like that again as I have learned from this. Thank you again.

We've all done stupid things in the past, the important thing is to learn from our mistakes. We would only do an interview if it was your wish to do one. Bawolff 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright thank you, and I read below and this isn't a friend or anyone else, this is me and I just needed to get this out before the situation went too out of control. Trust me, I have learned from this mistake of posting wrongful info when it was only rumors, and the fact that Nancy really did end up dying solidified that. It really was a 1 in 10,000 thing for something like this to happen, its crazy, but it really was only a terrible coincidence. Thats all I have to say, I hope everyone now realizes it was just a dumb comment that I posted based on pure speculation at the time, that unfortunately turned out to be true and thensome.

No problem whatsoever. The new story should be on TV and other websites by tomorrow. Thank you for coming forward with this. Thunderhead 06:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would strongly recommend that you post the links to these online rumors, then seek out the police, as they will seek out you, regardless of your wish for anonymity. 07:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but you should assume that the police will be contacting you. They have more than enough information to find you. In fact, I'd bet good money your name already appears on this page a few sections above. (edit conf) -Anþony 07:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well its fairly easy (if you're a police body) to figure out a name behind an IP. I don't think you have too much to worry about. Bawolff 07:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Looks like that anonymity might already be gone 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well thanks to this article everyone knows this guy is a racist. :| 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
how'd you come to that conclusion? Bawolff 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Look at this edit, and some others: [2]

This is great. Just goes to show that even on the internet there are consequences to your actions. 07:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if the tv networks will actually bother to cover this, they tend to have short attention spans and this doesn't really make for an exciting end to an interesting story, so they will probably just go on as if nothing happened. As sick and twisted as Benoit's actions were, this really was an amazing coincidence and I'm sure a lot of people had the most outrageous conspiracy theories in their minds when they heard about your edit, but now that it's been confirmed as a coincidence I think life will just go on as if it never really happened. Maybe if you worked as a telephone psychic as your day job, THEN we would have something interesting, but alas, this side of the story is now over 09:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is a front page story on this morning.[3] -- 10:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well you know, we are all talking softly to him, because now oh wow...he's a star. But I wanna say that he's only one of the thousand stupid vandals, and what he did is just stupid vandalism. Is one of the thousand people who try to burn wikipedia day-by-day and we're flatterin' him ("oh you know, dear, we all do stupid things in life...can I have your autograph?"). Dah, that's disgusting. -- 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I belive all people deserve second chances. I'd rather he learns from his mistakes then repeats them forever and ever. I would say the same thing to any other vandal. (and for the record i have gone through the rc on the english wikipedia in the past) Bawolff 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

An hour after your edit, made another edit claiming the death of Benoit's wife. See this edit. 19:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, I totally relate with you. Two years ago, right before the 6th Harry Potter book came out, some friends and I decided it would be funny to start telling everyone Dumbledore was going to die in the book. We had no inside information, but we had heard some rumors on websites. It was just something dumb, a prank. Then it came out and I was probably more surprised than anyone else when I read the book and he actually did die! I immediately starting calling all my friends telling them I really didn't know, it was just a coincidence, but they were all mad at me for ruining the book for them. Ok so my story didn't involve any real people dying, but the situation is the same, so I understand where you're coming from. Good luck with the police, I know you've learned your lesson and hopefully they'll realize it was all a misunderstanding and let you go (maybe if you started talking about hair, like those guys in the Boston adultswim fiasco?)- 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Admins, please confirm this


To the previous poster, sign your comment, we will see your IP and that should confirm your are the same person who posted the original edit about Nancy's death.--Smumdax 04:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've just looked at the history for this page...--Smumdax 04:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Confirmed, the edit was made from the IP address in question. Thunderhead 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
We can see the IP without him signing. Bawolff 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Correct, in the history. Not sure if it's the same person, but same IP address was used. Thunderhead 04:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
So, what now?--Smumdax 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah... Smumdax, you might wanna join us in IRC. Thunderhead 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm there...--Smumdax 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Basically, The IP address is the same. Therefor it is the same person unless one of the following:
  • Its a shared IP used by many people (possible but unlikely)
  • It a dynamic IP address and has changed computers (Possible, but to actually check what dynamic IP address you have at a moment, realize its the same, and then go here and write this big long confession— next to none is the probability I'd put on that)
  • Someone spoofed the IP. (Very unlikely, as honestly someone who would go to that much trouble (and actually know how to spoof an IP) has better things to do with their time)
Even with these unlikely possibilities, The content of the note suggests the author is sinceer. I'd give it a 99% chance of being true. Bawolff

This could be written by a friend who uses the same internet cafe (option #1 above) or a computer lab in a college/cubicle setting. However, I agree with Bawolff that this sounds self-authenticating, though that is highly subjective. 06:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well universities/collages usually have there name when you do a whois on the IP. The whois on this IP says its from the ISP Optimun Online. It could be an internet cafe, but for someone else to realize the internet cafe has the same IP address and then go to all this trouble is unlikely imo. Bawolff 06:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just put the ip address in and it came out to be on turner rd. 3.4 miles or 10 mins from the WWE headquaters...

IP address locators like those are unreliable. sometimes they're right, sometimes they're way off. See our previous attempts to trace. In any case it is the same IP, which makes it very likely it is the same person. Bawolff 08:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
If it was not the real person that posted it, then they would have posted something more interesting than an apology. It's safe to say that he really is who he says he is (taking liberties here, I'm assuming as he's a wrestling fan that he is male) 09:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Burton Barnes


Is this the guys name?? Or is it Marc Dagz??-- 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although a concidence with the contributations, that is still just speculation and coule be wrong. Bawolff 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Advice to


"incredibly coincidence" might satisfy the less rigorous concerns of anonymous contributors to an unprofitable online information exchange, but law enforcement investigators have higher standards. My advice to you is to tuck that computer under your arm and march yourself down to the police station and try to convince investigators you are unwittingly psychic. I assure you, they probably are interested in your entire e-mail list, and any other evidence of who you corresponded with between her time of death, the time you revealed your knowledge of her death and the time law enforcement learned of her death.

If you don't volunteer to explain your most unlikely coincidence, I promise you, a court can and most likely will issue a warrant that will empower these investigators to study your claim. You are in the spotlight and you have little way out. Tomorrow or the next day you most likely will be named on international news, further tarnishing the now badly soiled reputation of Wikipedia. It's time to get ahead of the ball, admit what you know and face justice for any crime to which you might have become a party. Andevere 17:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you really better go talk to the police. You are already involved in this and the sooner you talk to law enforcement the better for you, assuming this is just an unfortunate coincidence. 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are some Wikipedia or Wikinews writers accessories after the fact?


The posting of information about a killing by someone who apparently had inside knowledge about the killing is the inevitable result of a Web site that lets people compile unauthorized biographies with no fact checking before information is published.

The contributor's claim of the posting being a huge coincidence is extremely specious. The odds of guessing that accurately are so slim as to be inconsequential. The odds of specious claims being offered in lieu of facts from a person associated with the psuedo-wrestling stage-drama industry are exceptionally high. That means the message and follow-ups are likely to become evidence in murder investigations. The person who posted the information about this homicide before authorities knew about it is quite likely suspected by investigators as being an accessory after the fact. All Wikipedia logs, and Wikinews logs that reveal information about others posting from this IP are subject to search warrant. If the matter goes to court, anything probative the warrant produces may become public records.

For investigators not familiar with Wikipedia procedures, the IP used to release information about the killing might have been used by a regular contributor of Wikipedia behind the mask of a user name. The only way to know is to run what Wikipedia calls "check-user" on persons of interest who previously contributed to the article. That is a method whereby privileged Wikipedia contributors can spy on the IP information of otherwise anonymous users. Any admin with check user privileges who refuses check-user access to authorities might be charged with interfering with a murder investigation. The same goes for members of the WikiMedia Foundation board of directors, and possibly all who hold privilegs of "bureaucrat" or "steward" in the Wikipedia or Wikinews projects.

The article is wrong in saying that authorities confirmed the now-dead actor murdered his wife. Murder is a conclusion of law that can only be reached by a court of law. In cases where the killer dies, a court cannot try and find the person guilty of murder. It remains a homicide on all official documents, except perhaps on police investigative records (which are not conclusive findings of fact, but rather comprise presentations of evidence).

Though the former actor allegedly hanged himself after the killing, that doesn't mean the murder investigation is closed. It is only closed in Wikipedia's very wrong and naive article, which was apparently written in part by a person who has inside knowledge about the killings. The fact that information about the killings was circulated before police gained that knowledge obliges police to continue searching for accomplices, who might be accessories after the fact or who might have committed other criminal acts in harboring or assisting the killer after the killings, or failing to go to authorities with knowledge of a crime.

Now, for those readers more interested in the short version: Wikipedia is not above the law. Wikipedia might be the scene of a murder investigation. You are obligated to cooperate with investigators, or face the consequences. Andevere 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, any Wikipedia administrator who from this point forward oversites (removes from public view or from the database) any information associated with this investigation might become an accomplice to an accessory after the fact. And Wikipedia directors might want to consider that Congressional protections against liablity for Internet service providers only extend to civil liability, if they extend to Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia as an entity could become criminally liable if it does not cooperate with a criminal investigation. Andevere 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
What are you babbling on and on about? The wrestling community already had rumors that Nancy Benoit was "coughing up blood;" the anonymous user just took that to its logical conclusion. When did Wikimedia say it was above the law? They've been cooperating closely with investigators since we broke this story, and nothing's been deleted because, frankly, that's nearly impossible under MediaWiki. Bubbaprog 16:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your characterization of my contribution as "babbling on and on" indicates your disinterest in civil discourse. Any investigator, or most any reasonably intelligent reader who reads the contribution you offend against can recognize its meaning and accuracy. Your insult is a back-handed ad hominum attack - relevant only in what it says about you, your colleagues and your rhetorical methods.
That some in the faux-wrestling entertainment "community already had rumors that Nancy Benoit was coughing up blood" could be evidence that some in that purported community had knowledge of domestic violence and assisted in covering it up. Their refusal to report a crime might be a criminal act, and might render them morally culpable when the crimes escalated. It is widely known, and discussed on sites censored from mention on Wikipedia, that wikipedia's "professional" faux-wrestling entertainment-industry articles are dominated by fans and even professional members of that industry. It is very likely that one who contributed accurate information here before it was known to law enforcement authorities is a regular Wikipedia faux-wrestling contributor posing under an IP. It is very appropriate to remind Wikipedians that their obligations in this matter are first to the law and only secondly to their Wikipedia club. Andevere 16:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Although Bubbaprog is incorrect in the deleting of info from mediawiki (I should know, I'm one of the people who can delete random stuff from this wiki), Andevere has a really distorted version of the truth. First of all, we keep a record of everything oversighted, its is not gone. Seccond, If the police wanted information about username ip's (which would be odd, as the edit wasn't from a user name), they would not contact someone with check user, they would contact the wikimedia foundation. The wmf can get its hands on any server records it likes as it owns the servers. (Although I was under the impression for police to get that info they need a warrent or something). Checkuser privs is only to determine if a user is a sock puppet. In addition, admin and beurocrat privs have nothing to do with what you're talking about. With all due respect, you don't have the faintist idea about what you are talking about. Bawolff 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Andevere, you should know that the Wikipedia administrators contacted the w:Fayetteville, Georgia sheriff's department even before the Wikinews article was written. Your hints that Wikipedia and/or Wikinews is not cooperating with authorities or could even be considered accessories to a crime is nonsense. What I find funny is that your response to the logically false ad hominem attack, as you perceived it, is an equally logically false guilt by association attack. --SVTCobra 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Admins, please confirm this


To the previous poster, sign your comment, we will see your IP and that should confirm your are the same person who posted the original edit about Nancy's death.


First of all it is fairly easy to change your IP address, there are things such as Steganos Internet Anonym, which you can even specifically put that you are from Stanford, CT, so then your IP looks like its from stanford, CT. So as far as we know this could be just a coincidence or it could be someone covering up some huge conspiracy, we may never know.

18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not to get too technical, you won't be able to view websites if you send forged IP addresses with the hyper-text transfer protocol requests. Basically, think of an envelope: you won't ever get an response if the returning address is wrong. (And yes, there is a lot of back&forth on any HTTP request). 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Seganos provide you access to a list of proxy servers - if you knew more about how Wikipedia operates you'd realise these are likely already blocked. You can't pick an IP address at random and start using it, that isn't how the Internet works. - I should know, I've been on since 1986. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply



ok, we got it, and forgive you! You were wrong on posting that information without first double checking. Now, my question is: why did you do it? did you know at the time that the information could have been totally wrong? I am always amaze on how losers wikipedians are actually. Just sitting there reading nonsebnse and trying to be the first in posting it in Wikipedia. What a bunch of losers. I am upset. -- posted by User:


The Wikinews investigation is unable to conclude whether the anonymous editors had inside information about the death of Nancy Benoit.
Did you read this sentence? --+Deprifry+ 20:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

A suggestion going forward...


There are some Wiki-style websites, like Lostpedia, that do not allow you to edit unless you've registered with the site and provided a valid email address. Wikipedia might want to look into this in the future. It probably wouldn't stop vandalism, but maybe it would save time in tracing this stuff back to them. --Amberjet11 15:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia requires registration to start articles, but not to edit them. Otherwise, it would go against the wiki way. Thunderhead 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
It may seem a little counter-intuitive, but editing without an account is actually less anonymous. Everyone can see your IP and immediately trace it back to your ISP and location. If you create an account, only the site administrators have access to your IP address. On top of that, providing an email address doesn't really do anything to establish your identity, since throwaway email accounts are so easy to come by. -Anþony 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it was a coincidence, what gives you the right to even dare say that Nancy Benoit had died. What if she were in fact alive; Your comment, especially if it is a coincidence, is absolutely heartless and shows a lack of respect for any living individuel. How can you claim some one is dead, if you have no proof?

It would look a lot better on your profile, if you admit the truth rather than state that it was a major coincidence. Who, with a decent moral center, goes on the Internet and edits a page to include a, what you called a speculation, that Nancy Benoit had died.

Death of an individuel, unless of obvious health circumstances such as diseases, should never be speculated.

Hey. person who posted the "coincidence" Why dont you not ever post ANYTHING on wiki? if it pure fact someone will eventually add it on. Honestly dont you think? 01:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe that guy


I know I myself have made random edits on Wikipedia. I believe that guy!



toda esta historia falsa, fue una conspiracion, hacia chris benoit debido, q hay hechos q no se esclarecen, y hechos q son ilogicos,, al parecer. de cualquier persona. solo es cuestion de ponerle mucha atencion a escritos como en wikinews aparecen y relatan.

solo es cosa de poner atencion  y uno solo se da cuenta de muchos versiones q se conflictan. chris benoit, luchador correcto de muchos años no solo reciente, memorable gladiador. R.I.P.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply 

La muerte de Chris Benoit


Yo no creo que la muerte de Chris Benoit sea tal y como la dicen otras páginas y noticias del mundo.Porque si se lee el wikinews se van a enterar que 14 horas de que la policia encuentre el cuerpo sin vida de la esposa de Chris alguien, ya habia escrito que chris no iba a ir al programa ,y que iba a ser remplazado por Nitro para la lucha del campeonato porque tenia problemas personales por la muerte de su esposa,cosa que no puede ser posible segun las teorias de las noticias del mundo.Yo creo que todo esto fue una conspiracion en contra de benoit porque esta persona que escribio esta noticia resulto ser de la WWE y del cuartel de Vengance.Yo creo que alguien mato a los 3 miembros de esa familia primero a la esposa y chris mientras trataba de revivir a su esposa mataron a su hijo y despues de eso no tubieron mejor idea que matarlo a chris y hacerlo parecer como un homicidio-suicidio.Sino como se explican porque etrañamente borraron todos los recuerdos de chris benoit de la WWE.Benoit que fue un luchador ejemplar.R.I.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Benoit Murder Suicide not a Murder suicide but a triple murder.


It is not commonly known that when the police found the bodies that there was a lot of beer cans laying around and a half empty midsize bottle of wine by Chris's body. The reason I bring that up is because no alcohol was found in any of their systems according to an Autopsy. Also one man who saw the crime scene photos said that he did not see any bibles by the bodies in the photos that were taken before anything was removed from the crime scene. Also it commonly known that a former prosecutor said it is too much of a coincidence that someone would up up on here that Nancy Benoit was dead just hours before she was found to be dead. I firmly believe with the lack of evidence showing that Chris killed his family and them himself. And the Abundance of evidence that seems to point to someone else being at their place, just proves to me and a lot of people that Chris is a victim of shoddy police work and that some one killed all three of them.

Return to "Death of Nancy Benoit rumour posted on Wikipedia hours prior to body being found" page.