Home > Uncategorized > CRM 101 Internet Blog #5 Due Thurs 11/11

CRM 101 Internet Blog #5 Due Thurs 11/11

Introduction to Criminology–CRM 101

Internet Blogging Assignment #5:  Due Thursday November 11, 2010 at the beginning of class

Instructions: For this internet blogging assignment, students are asked to (1) view during class the ”true life” movie ”Changling” starring Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich (2008), (2) read through the true life chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders as found from a website below, then (3) answer the following questions regarding a comparison between the film and the “true life” story of the murders:

a.  Compare the movie “Changling” to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.  Did you find the movie “Changling” to be a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, or was it simply “Hollywood” trying to make a buck?

b.  Do you believe it’s good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders?  Why or Why not?

c.  If you could change anything about the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, what would you change in the movie?  Why?  If you wouldn’t change anything in the movie, support your view as well.

When you enter your blog online, please make sure to label your responses (a, b, c) clearly.  Responses may be a little longer than in previous blogging assignments, so take your time and think your answers through.  Remember:  one of the most important aspects of this course is being able to “apply” reality to theory.  Good luck and have fun!

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Retrieved from Web 10/28/09:  http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2008/12/real-stories-behind-changeling.html

The Wineville Chicken Murders, the impersonation of Walter Collins, LAPD corruption, and the secrets of Canada’s Northcott familyThe case of serial killer Gordon Stewart Northcott and little Walter Collins is so surpassingly bizarre, so full of incredible twists, that even a full-length feature film from one of Hollywood’s premiere directors couldn’t properly do it justice. It is, in fact, one of the strangest cases in the history of American justice. Yet this nearly-forgotten story of abuse of power, family dysfunction, and deception remains deeply revelent today, in a time when unlawful detainment, official malfeasance, and extralegal measures like “extraordinary rendition” are common.

By the time the events of the “Wineville chicken coop murders” reached their tragic conclusion, a police force had been disgraced, a town had decided to change its name, and at least five people were dead.

Our story begins on March 10, 1928, the day 9-year-old Walter Collins disappeared from Los Angeles on his way to a movie matinee. At this time the LAPD was rife with corruption. A “gun squad” practiced its own strange brand of urban Western justice under the leadership of Police Chief James “Two Guns” Davis, mowing down suspected criminals and inconvenient persons alike under the force’s shoot to kill policy; bodies were routinely found in alleys, warehouses, and other dark corners of the city. The LAPD also had its fingers in an array of criminal enterprises (bootlegging, prostitution, extortion, bribery), and was frantically trying to cleanse its image as public outcry against the corruption grew louder and more strident every day. In this maelstrom, the Collins investigation went absolutely nowhere. Police breezily assured Walter’s mother Christine, whose husband was serving a sentence in Folsom Prison, that her son might have run away from home and would probably return on his own, even after 12-year-old Lewis Winslow and his 10-year-old brother, Nelson, vanished from Pomona on May 16th. They left the Model Yacht Club that evening after working on some arts and crafts, and never returned home.

Sanford

That July, 21-year-old chicken rancher Gordon Stewart Northcott was having family trouble. Northcott and his parents had moved illegally to California from their native Canada four years earlier. The Northcotts had purchased the three-acre chicken ranch near the town of Wineville, Riverside County, for their son when he was 19 years old. Stewart, as he was known in the family, had lived there by himself only a few months before he drove to Saskatoon to fetch a housemate: his 13-year-old nephew, Sanford Clark. Stewart’s older sister, Winnifred, was separated from her husband and working to support her children, so having Stewart and her parents look after the boy might have eased her burden somewhat.
With Sanford as unpaid labour, Gordon and his father Cyrus (known as George) built a house, a garage, six chicken coops, and numerous outbuildings on the ranch.
Sanford rose every day at 5:30 to make breakfast, then did farm chores while Stewart “ran errands”. At various times Northcott told neighbors and school officials that Sanford was studying to enter the priesthood, attending a Catholic school, or recuperating from an illness. Sometimes he said Sanford was old enough to quit school. These were all lies. Sanford hadn’t attended a single day of classes since his arrival in the U.S.

But this was not the worst thing happening at Stewart’s ranch. At least twice a week, Stewart would rape his nephew. He flew into rages without provocation, beating the boy frequently. He also brought about a dozen young boys to the ranch to be sexually assaulted. He released them with threats to find and kill them if they told anyone. He had tried to molest his mechanic’s teen son on several occasions. In August of 1927 a father caught Stewart trying to lure his son from Pickering Park, and chased him away with a knife. Two years before that, he had been arrested for inappropriate behaviour toward a friend’s little brother. Stewart would mourn his loss of this boy for years, playing the child’s favourite song (Song of Songs) on the piano as he sat on a stool the boy had made. Awaiting execution, he played a recording of the song over and over on a phonograph.

There was much more. Between February 1st and the end of May, 1928, Stewart had carried out and covered up four murders – with Sanford’s unwilling help.

Now, at the end of July, Sanford’s 19-year-old sister Jessie was planning a trip to California. Though the family had no reason to think Sanford was being mistreated in any way, they suspected he wasn’t attending school; his cheery letters home hadn’t improved much in quality over the two years he had been in Stewart’s care.
Jessie arrived from Vancouver by boat on July 26th, to her uncle’s extreme displeasure. She found her little brother work-hardened, “peaked”, and fearful, but he insisted he was still attending school and enjoying himself on the farm – at least when Stewart was around. When he wasn’t, Sanford gave Jessie details of the horrors he had survived at the ranch.

The Mexican

On February 1st, Sanford told his sister, their Uncle Stewart had returned to the ranch from one of his mysterious “errands” and announced that he had just murdered a young Mexican man. He had the man’s severed head in a bucket, and showed it to Sanford before he burned it in a bonfire and disposed of the charred remains. He said he had dumped the man’s body near Puente.
In a later account, Stewart admitted to this murder but wildly embellished the story, claiming he had to shoot the man nine times in the heard before he would die. Then Louise mopped up the bloodstain.
Whatever the circumstances of the murder, the entire family was complicit in covering it up. They agreed not to tell the authorities anything unless asked. Stewart had forced Sanford to tell his parents, George and Louise, that Stewart had hired the Mexican to do some chores at the ranch, caught him stealing, and was threatened with a knife. So Sanford shot him.
The following day, the headless body of a Mexican man roughly 18 years old, covered by a burlap sack, was found by the side of a road near Puente. The remains were never identified. Stewart, when referring to the man, would use either the fictitious name “Alvin Gothea” or the generic name “Jose Gonzales”. At times he claimed that he had to kill the Mexican because he “knew too much”.

Walter

Walter Collins was taken to the ranch the same day he disappeared. By all accounts, Louise was there helping with chores for the week, and she knew that a young boy was staying at the ranch. She admittedly fed him meals.
Here, the accounts diverge. At different times, both Louise and Stewart admitted to killing Walter Collins with an axe. By the time of his trial in January 1929, Stewart was still more or less admitting that he did it, but only because Walter supposedly saw him shoot and kill a miner who was trying to rob another miner near a little shack Stewart had rented that month.

Once, Stewart confessed to overdosing Walter with ether as he slept on his cot, then shooting him when he said he felt “fine and dandy” and fell unconscious. But he insisted it was Louise who struck the fatal blow. At other times, he denied ever laying eyes on Walter Collins.

At her trial, Louise testified that Walter just showed up at the ranch one night and asked to stay, so she set up a cot for him in one of the chicken coops. The next day, the boy waited around while Stewart fixed up his car. That night, Louise said, she went out to the coop to fetch something and found the boy on his cot with his head “crushed in”, but still alive. “I took the ax and hit him on the temple and finished him up to keep him out of his suffering.” She hinted that Sanford had injured the boy; he was just exiting the coop when Louise approached it, while Stewart was presumably still tinkering with his car. (3, 56)

Sanford’s account was much different. He knew exactly what his uncle liked to do with young boys. And it seems Louise was also aware of her son’s pedophilia. She suggested to Sanford and her son that Walter must be killed; he would talk if allowed to leave the ranch alive. (Today, this seems like an eerie foreshadowing of the Pickton family. In 1967 Louise Pickton allegedly drowned a 14-year-old boy her son had struck with his vehicle, rolling him into a water-filled ditch to hide the accident. Years later, her other son – Robert – was convicted of killing numerous women and burying their bodies on his pig farm.)
Louise said each of them would have to participate in the murder so they would be equally culpable if caught. They would each strike the boy once with an axe.
Two years later, at the foot of the gallows, three men would approach the death of Stewart Northcott with the same logic. Each man would step forward and slice one of three cords, only one them actually attached to the trapdoor through which the prisoner’s body would plummet. That way, the men would never know which one of them caused the man’s death.

The Northcotts entered the coop where Walter lay asleep, and by the light of a flashlight struck the boy repeatedly with an axe. He was buried in an adjoining coop. Later, Stewart moved the body and reburied it with lime.

The three accounts agreed on only one point: Walter Collins was dead.

The Winslow Brothers

Around 10:00 on the night of May 16th, Stewart arrived at the ranch with Lewis and Nelson Winslow. Sanford was ordered to set up the hen house for them, then nail the door shut with the boys and Stewart inside (Stewart would open the door from the inside when he was ready to get out). The boys were held in the hen house for about a week. This time, Louise wasn’t present. It was Sanford who brought the boys food and water, and emptied their chamberpot. He said the brothers drew pictures and played cards.
Stewart made the boys write two letters to their parents, telling them they had run away to Mexico “to make a lot of money making yachts and airplanes” and were “having a wonderful adventure”, a ploy he probably picked up from another child-killer (see the section on Stewart, below).

On the 25th or 26th, Stewart announced it was time to kill the boys. After an unsuccessful attempt to kill the older boy, Lewis, with ether, Stewart sent him to the house. He and Sanford then killed Nelson, and later Lewis, by striking him over the head and burying him alive.

Stewart didn’t always explicitly deny the murders during his trial, but he did try to heap as much blame as possible onto his nephew. At one point, he claimed Sanford had beaten Nelson to death and concealed the body from Lewis for three days. Finally, Lewis’ questions about his brother became so persistent that Stewart killed him. Representing himself, he grilled Sanford on the witness stand as to why he hadn’t protested killing the Winslow brothers, or run to the neighbors for help. Surely this was one of the most surreal moments in an already bizarre trial: Stewart actually mocking the boy for overestimating his ability to control the situation.

The Lucky Ones

With four murders behind them, the Northcott family embarked on a demented family project engineered by Stewart. In late June, Stewart posed as the personal secretary of a fabulously wealthy “Mrs. Rowan” and presented himself at the Salvation Army in L.A., seeking a laborer/cook for one of Mrs. Rowan’s numerous ranches. He selected Jacob Dahl, a married father of four sons ranging in age from 8 to 15.
Louise was to pose as Stewart’s aunt, and Sanford was to be her son. Stewart introduced himself to Mr. and Mrs. Dahl as “Mr. Craig”. He drove them out to the ranch and served them a light supper, including peaches that seemed to have some sort of capsules sprinkled over them. Mrs. Dahl found this this, and the family’s nervous behavior, rather odd – but it seemed like a good position for her husband, so she said nothing. At the end of the evening, Stewart returned the Dahls to their home. Shortly afterward, he informed them that Mrs. Rowan’s husband had died and the cook was no longer needed.
Sanford explained that Stewart scrapped his plan to murder the Dahls and abduct their sons because he was afraid of being caught.

Escape #1

Stewart had threatened to hunt him down and kill him if he ever ran away, Sanford told his sister.
Jessie didn’t challenge her uncle during the week she stayed at the ranch. She played her cards slowly and carefully, aware that any misstep could be fatal. Two bullet holes in the wall of the bedroom she slept in served as reminders of Stewart’s volatility.
Though he didn’t trust her entirely, Stewart confided in his niece at least once. He told her he wanted to make his mechanic’s son his “new darling” because Sanford’s voice was beginning to change.
On August 2nd, Jessie left the ranch to spend her last two weeks in California with George and Louise in L.A. She took Sanford with her and sent him to the home of a friend. George assisted them in the secret escape plot. He clearly didn’t approve of what was going on at the ranch, but was afraid to openly defy his own deranged son and wife. When Stewart and Lewis headed off to the ranch with a large load of firewood, he commented to Jessie that they were going to “destroy their evidence….I told them they could do their own dirty work.” (3, 81)
The very next day, when Stewart learned his nephew was gone, he was angry enough to brandish a gun at his father. George broke down and revealed Sanford’s location.
Sanford was immediately driven back to the ranch by his uncle.

Escape #2

One week later, on a Sunday, George and Jessie made another attempt to spring Sanford. Stewart had said he was going to be in San Diego for the day, and Louise was out of the house, so they seized this chance to drive out to the ranch.
Louise had beaten them there. Stewart was there, as well. They had apparently laid a trap. During the ensuing confrontation, Jessie announced her intention to take Sanford home to Canada. Stewart punched her in the face. Later, he explained to her that Sanford couldn’t leave because he had shot a miner who was robbing another miner. A little boy had witnessed this, and he and Sanford had been forced to eliminate the witness.

Escape #3

The day she was scheduled to return to Canada, Jessie made one last attempt to free her brother. Stewart had ordered Sanford to take a cab from their grandparents’ house back to the ranch, but Jessie secretly instructed him to go a nearby fruit market instead, and she would try to pony up the money for a bus ticket out of the city. George assured Jessie he could come up with the money. She left the U.S. believing – hoping – that Sanford would soon be on his way home, too.

He wasn’t. At the end of August, Jessie received a telegram from George, saying he would bring Sanford to Canada in six weeks. It turned out that he had taken Sanford to the bus station, only to encounter Stewart there. Furious, Stewart again reclaimed his nephew and hauled him to the ranch.

Stewart

Why did everyone bow to Stewart Northcott’s wishes? He was like the boy in the Twilight Zone episode who threatens to send his family “out to the cornfield” with his paranormal powers unless they go out of their way to amuse and placate him.
Sanford, George, and Jessie were fearful of Stewart, with good reason. Louise’s motive for cooperating with her son’s plans might have been quite different, though. At her son’s trial, she declared he was the only person in the world who had ever shown her any love. In return, she offered an almost slavish devotion to his whims.

George and Louise married in their native Ontario in 1886, when they were both very young. A few years later they had Winnifred. Five other children didn’t survive, including a 5-year-old boy named Willie. Stewart was born in Bladworth, Saskatchewan, in 1906 or 1907, the same year Winnifred married John Clark and settled on a farm in the area.

Years later, reporters covering Stewart’s murder trial would make much of his “effeminate” traits, and there were rumours that Louise had dressed and treated him as a girl until he was 12 years old. No evidence bears this out. The descriptions of Stewart as both a hairy “Ape Man” and a “broad-shouldered coquettish girl” seem to stem from the abhorrence for his same-sex orientation. The prosecution actually made note of this more often than the fact that Stewart was a pedophile and a sexual predator.

At this time, George was probably considered the ne’er-do-well of his family. He toiled on small farms or did construction work while two of his brothers ran successful medical practices. Then, in 1919, Ephraim Northcott accidentally killed a young nurse during a backroom abortion and was sentenced to prison, where he passed away in July 1928. He died without learning that he wasn’t the only killer in the family.

In 1913, after living in Edmonton for a time, the Northcotts settled in Vancouver. They would reside there until illegally immigrating to California in 1924.

In the winter of 1918, according to family members, Stewart slipped on some ice and cracked his head, resulting in minor hemorrhaging and a period of delusion (for weeks he believed Louise was dead, even though she was right in front of his eyes). He was never quite the same. Louise stated at his trial that a family doctor in Edmonton told her his mind had never been “just right”.
But he retained an average or even above-average intellect. He appreciated classical music, and as a teenager in Vancouver he played piano in a movie house and conducted a small jazz orchestra at a cafe.

At Stewart’s trial, George Northcott admitted he was terrified of his own son, who abused him after years of being not simply spoiled but ruined by Louise. Louise always encouraged his behaviour, bringing him up to treat his father like an “old fool”. George described himself as “the family football”, and that was exactly the impression he left on everyone – a meek old man, disgusted by his son’s tyranny but far too cowed to do anything about it.

Stewart was a pathological liar. When he rented the shack in Mint Valley, near Saugus, the same month Walter Collins was killed, he told the owners he was a journalist. They were made extremely nervous by this strange man who toted around two pistols and a box he wouldn’t allow anyone to touch. He spoke knowingly about a gruesome child murder that had taken place in L.A. the previous December. William Edward Hickman, 19 years old, abducted the 12-year-old daughter of a former employer and had the girl, Marion Parker, write letters to her father to assure him she was safe. These were accompanied by dramatic ransom demands from Hickman, signed “The Fox”. Mr. Parker arranged to meet The Fox in an isolated spot to hand over the money. Hickman pulled up alongside Parker in his car, grabbed the money, then drove a short distance before dumping Marion’s limp body beside the road. Her arms and legs had been removed, her eyelids stitched open.
One month before Walter Collins disappeared, Hickman was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Stewart commented to the cabin owner’s wife that Hickman “didn’t know how to put over a first-class murder.” (3, 59)

Walter?

With her husband serving a sentence for robbery in Folsom Prison, Christine Collins was essentially a single mother, renting rooms in a modest home in the Mount Washington area, working as a phone operator.
Convinced that her son could be alive, she paid close attention to sightings of Walter that were reported from all over California throughout the summer of 1928. There were numerous reports that an “Italian-looking” man and woman had been seen loitering in the Collins’ neighborhood in the days before Walter disappeared, and a few people claimed to have seen Walter in the presence of a similar “foreign” couple. A particularly chilling sighting was reported by a gas station attendant in Glendale who was quite certain he had seen Walter’s limp, possibly lifeless, body in the backseat of a car that pulled into his station.

There was also a promising sighting of the Winslow brothers: A traveling salesman in New Braunfels, Texas, believed he had given a ride to the two boys sometime in June. Later events proved this to be a false sighting. The boys’ father had also received the letters Stewart had forced Lewis and Nelson to write, informing him they were heading for Mexico. Incidents like these fed Christine Collins’ belief that Walter was still alive.

Walter Collins Sr. and some police officers, on the other hand, suspected that former inmates had killed his boy in retaliation for something he had done, and a Los Angeles Times article darkly hinted that Mrs. Collins might have gotten on the wrong side of some criminals while trying to “negotiate her husband’s release”. This was an ominous foreshadowing to the scapegoating of Mrs. Collins, but no one could possibly have foreseen what was about to occur.

In August, a young boy was brought into the police station in Dekalb, Illinois, after he was found wandering alone. He gave his name as Arthur Kent, and told police his father had abandoned him. He hinted that he had lived in Hollywood and Los Angeles, but refused to betray his father by providing any further details.
Authorities placed him temporarily with a farmer. Illinois State Police officer O.N. Larson grew convinced that the boy was really Walter Collins, and his suspicions seemed to be borne out when the boy finally admitted it. In the excitement of finding Walter, no one dwelt too heavily on the question of why the boy would deny his own identity for several weeks.
Mrs. Collins immediately sent $70 of her own money to Dekalb for train fare, while the LAPD stage-managed a publicized reunion that could finally redeem the police in the public’s eye. Photographers mobbed the platform as Walter, looking remarkably healthy after his long ordeal, stepped off the train and was guided to his anxiously waiting mother.
But there was to be no joyful reunion. Christine Collins knew at once that this boy was not her son, though he somewhat resembled Walter in age, build, and colouring. She informed LAPD Captian J.J. Jones of this immediately. Utterly unwilling to see his golden PR coup destroyed, Captain Jones firmly assured Mrs. Collins the boy was Walter; he just looked a bit different after all he’d been through, that was all. Over her objections, he urged her to take the boy home with her. Ten days later, Mrs. Collins returned “Walter” to the police, even more adamant that he was not her child. For one thing, his teeth didn’t match Walter’s dental records – and the dentist had signed a statement to that effect. Captain Jones continued to insist the boy had to be Walter. Perhaps his abductor had brainwashed him into behaving differently and forgetting certain details about his life, he suggested.
Rather than admit the mistake and forfeit all that good publicity the police had received for “solving” the case, they maintained that Walter had passed tests to confirm his identity. To get rid of the evidence that the official LAPD position was crumbling, on September 8th Captain Jones had Mrs. Collins involuntarily committed to the county psychiatric ward under a “Code 12″ designation reserved for bothersome people. She was told that she was either mentally ill, or a bad mother trying to unload her son onto the state. She would not be allowed to leave until she admitted that the boy from Illinois was her child. Mrs. Collins bravely refused to bow to police pressure.
However, the police did question “Walter” more thoroughly once he was in state custody. He confessed he wasn’t really Walter, but Billy Fields. Then he admitted he was really Arthur Hutchens, a 12-year-old runaway from Iowa. He didn’t like living with his stepmother, Violet Hutchens, and his resemblance to Walter Collins had presented him with a golden opportunity to travel to California, where he hoped to meet movie cowboy Tom Mix. Arthur’s family had a connection to California; his father, J.S. Hutchens, had recently served time in San Quentin for sexual offenses against boys.
Christine Collins was quietly released from the psych hospital on September 15th.

Strangely, the clues to “Walter’s” real identity had been in plain sight all along. As reported by the Los Angeles Times on August 5, 1928, while Arthur was still staying at the farm near DeKalb, a man with bullet scars on his face had shown up while the boy was out. He appeared to be searching for someone, but merely asked for some food. He was soon identified as J.S. Hutchens. Told of the man’s visit, Arthur burst out, “That’s my daddy!”. Mr. Hutchens never reappeared. Police speculated that J.S. Hutchens had abducted Walter Collins upon his release from San Quentin, but were unable to locate him.

Then there was the fact that Sandford Clark had identified one of his uncle’s victims as Walter Collins. The juvenile officers who questioned Sanford accepted this story at first, but when Walter turned up alive in Illinois they concluded that Sanford must be mistaken…or lying. The Los Angeles Times noted this “perplexing paradox” on September 16th, even adding that Jessie Clark corroborated her brother’s account of the murders. He had told her all about the murder of Walter Collins when she visited the ranch in July.

Escape #4

With Jessie back in Canada, Stewart knew he was on borrowed time. He began selling off his possessions as though preparing for flight.

He didn’t know that it was already too late. Jessie had promptly reported her brother’s abuse to the American consulate in Vancouver. She may have mentioned the murders, but if so that information was not imparted to the two LAPD officers and the two immigration officials dispatched to the ranch. They believed they were just checking on a couple of young Canadian men who were living in the country illegally.
On August 31st, as Stewart, Sanford, and the mechanic’s son were loading furniture at the ranch, the two immigration inspectors arrived. Stewart immediately ran off into the desert, leaving Sanford to be taken to Juvenile Hall for questioning.

Within two days of being taken into custody, Sanford told investigators that Stewart had removed him from his parents’ home in Canada two years earlier, when he was 13, and had been abusing him physically and sexually since that time. He also made the startling revelation that Stewart had murdered several young boys with an axe and buried their bodies on the ranch. He also claimed Gordon had killed a man on the highway near Saugus on March 10, two days before the St. Francis Dam disaster. (The murder of the young Mexican man, as we’ve seen, actually took place on the first day of February. Whether Sanford was referring to this murder or to a second, unverified, crime is unclear).
Sanford picked the Winslow boys and Walter Collins out of a stack of 30 photographs. Walter, he said, had been killed about a week after his abduction. The Winslow boys had been killed with blows from an axe, and Sanford himself was forced to kill the younger boy, Nelson, on threat of death.

Incredibly, Stewart evaded authorities with the aid of a city judge, H.S. Farrell of Alhambra. He simply showed up at the man’s office on August 31st and gave him a long story about how he was trying to bring up his nephew with Catholic principles, while his immoral sister was trying to pry the boy away from him. The judge refused to intervene directly in the matter, but he obligingly drove Stewart to the home of a lawyer, then to George and Louise’s house.

Stewart fled to Vancouver, beyond the reach of immigration officials, on his attorney’s advice. A few days later, Louise quit her job as a laundress at L.A. General Hospital and followed, leaving George alone in California. One has to wonder if he was relieved to finally be free of these two insane people for a while.

In a room of the ranch house, investigators found a book that had been checked out of the Pomona public library by one of the Winslow brothers. Some of their Boy Scout badges and a hat belonging to Lewis were also found on the ranch, along with a bloodstained mattress and axes encrusted with blood and human hair.

Jessie and her family had no idea what was happening until September 8th. On that day, Jessie and a friend were walking in Vancouver, en route to a job interview. Suddenly they ran into her grandmother and Uncle Stewart, who informed her that Sanford was about to be deported back to Canada. Jessie quickly summoned her mother to Vancouver, but soon after Winnifred’s arrival, the news broke that Stewart was wanted on suspicion of murder.

Even though Sanford had told his story to the authorities two days after he was taken into custody, they were initially skeptical. He wasn’t questioned fully until September 14th.
He led police to two gravesites near his uncle’s chicken coop, where the partial skeletonized remains of three children were found on September 17th. These proved to be the remains of the Winslow brothers and parts of the unidentified Mexican man. In all, 51 human body parts were found on the ranch.
Sanford implicated his grandmother in Walter’s murder. He said she neither participated in nor witnessed the Winslow murders, but knew all about them.

On September 19th, Louise Northcott was taken into custody on a train in Calgary. Stewart was arrested on a train in Vernon, B.C. (interestingly, the final destination of two California boys who briefly fooled authorities into believing they had been raised in the wilderness). On the train ride back to California, Stewart initiated a pattern that would become familiar to everyone who encountered him in the next two years: He alternated between indignantly protesting his innocence and sanity, and making bizarre confessions to Riverside County deputy district attorney Earl Redwine.
Three days later a grand jury in Riverside County returned five indictments against Stewart: four counts of murder, and one of sodomy. Louise was named in an indictment for the murder of Walter Collins.

On September 23rd, Christine Collins threw a 10th birthday party for her missing son.

In Riverside County Jail, Stewart alternated between declaring total innocence and implicating everyone in his family. He was allowed to meet with Sanford, who was in hospital, and demanded the boy confess. When that didn’t work, he tried to sweet-talk him into confessing. Sanford stood his ground. So did George. Louise was still in Canada, fighting extradition.
Stewart continued to make sporadic confessions. At one point he said he had killed 9 people, and would “play crazy” in court – only he would keep it up longer than Edward Hickman, who had been caught feigning insanity when he wrote letters about his ruse to another prisoner. Stewart even said he had once had a brother named Richard, whom George had killed when he was 9 or 10 years old. There was no such brother.
In addition to fake confessions, Stewart took great delight in leading the police on wild goose chases all over the desert, pointing out “graves” that turned out to be nonexistent. The full remains of his victims were never located.
There are indications that Stewart savored his infamy. For all his bitter complaints about the media, he never declined an interview. He talked at length about his love of music, his chickens, his philosophy of life.

In October, William Hickman was executed for the murder of Marian Parker. Knowing that his role model died at the end of a rope couldn’t have been a comfort to Stewart.

In December, as Stewart’s trial date neared, Louise Northcott made two very strange confessions that remain rather baffling. First, she confessed to police that she had murdered all of the boys, including Walter Collins. She said she had killed the Mexican in self-defense. Later, she altered her confession to minimize her own participation in the crimes. She claimed that Sanford had killed Lewis Winslow and severely beaten Nelson, so Louise shot him merely to end his misery. Sanford also bashed in Walter’s head, and she had to put him out of his misery as well. Then Sanford and Jessie, who despised her son, framed Stewart for everything. Louise was perfectly willing to sacrifice her grandchildren to save her beloved boy. Unluckily for her, Redwine didn’t buy much of the story. While the entire family had some involvement in what had become known as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, this was obviously just Louise’s desperate attempt to keep Stewart from being convicted.
Whether authentic or not, however, her confession to the murder of Walter Collins stood up in court because it was corroborated by Sanford’s testimony. She pled guilty and was handed a life sentence.

The second confession was far stranger, and as it couldn’t possibly have helped Stewart in any way, Louise’s reasons for giving it remain unclear. She may have been trying to feign insanity, or she may actually have been insane.
Louise had summoned Earl Redwine to her cell to “confess” that she wasn’t Stewart’s real mother. She explained that at 17 she met and secretly married an English lord. The same day, she realized that the marriage would be a “detriment to his career” and urged him to go home and fulfill his obligations. Two years later, she bigamously wed George Northcott. Then, in 1906, the lord unexpectedly returned to Canada and swept Louise away to live with him. Three days later he died of heart failure. She returned to George only to learn that he had impregnated their daughter in her brief absence. She stuck to this story throughout Stewart’s trial.

Stewart showed no gratitude for his mother’s efforts to save him. Reading an overwrought letter from her, he commented that he didn’t like her and had always considered her crazy.

Trial

Stewart Gordon Northcott stood trial in Riverside County in January 1929 for the murders of the Winslow brothers and the unidentified Mexican man, whom he referred to at that time as “Alvin Gothea”. Despite his signed confessions, he pled not guilty to all three murders, then proceeded to put on an extremely weird defense, firing three attorneys before deciding to represent himself. He accused the sheriff of plotting to kill him, swore at the prosecutor, talked at great length about a disease that had stricken his chickens, and questioned himself on the witness stand.
Things got even stranger when Louise was summoned to testify on her son’s behalf. On the witness stand, she publicly declared for the first time that Gordon was not her son, but her grandson. If she and Stewart thought this would provoke sympathy for him, they were wrong. It actually made Stewart’s sexual abuse of Sanford even more appalling, because Sanford was now not just a family member, but his half-brother. Oddly, Stewart had freely admitted to sodomizing his nephew. He said he didn’t know it was inappropriate to have sexual relations with his nephew/brother until authorities explained it to him, despite his supposedly devout Catholicism and the fact that he had brought a Bible with him from Canada.

There were also allegations, from Stewart, that George had repeatedly raped him when he was a child. “I could not help it I was brought into the world. I did not ask to be brought in. I was not responsible for the sins of these people before me.” (3, 199)
George Northcott denied it all. In fact, though he was testifying on behalf of his son, his testimony was extraordinarily damaging to Stewart. George admitted he had seen some of the bodies before Stewart destroyed them with lime, lye, fire, and an axe. He had even bragged about the murders to his father. Only a few months earlier, George had insisted that Stewart had always been a “good boy” who displayed no “abnormal tendencies”.
On the stand, he explained that Louise would say anything to defend her son. He was “her god”.

Louise demonstrated this amply in court. During questioning, she told Stewart, “You are the only one that has ever brought any joy or happiness to my old gray life and has used me right and given me any love.” (3, 202)

The most damaging testimony came, of course, from Sanford Clark. Combined with the physical evidence, it convinced a jury that Stewart Northcott was guilty after just a few hours of deliberation. Stewart was convicted of all counts.

After his conviction, Stewart wrote George out of his personal history by telling prison officials that his father died in an insane asylum before his trial. This, despite the fact that George had pled for leniency on his son’s behalf, arguing that Stewart shouldn’t be executed because he was obviously “of unsound mind.”

Mr. Winslow knew he had a limited amount of time in which to get Stewart to reveal where his boys were buried. On February 10th, he assembled a posse of about 100 men. They drove caravan-style to to Riverside County Jail and surrounded the building while Winslow demanded they be allowed to remove Stewart from his cell and force him to reveal the location of the bodies. The sheriff and his men managed to calm Winslow and send him away; the other men dispersed on their own.

On February 13, 1929, Judge George R. Freeman sentenced Northcott to execution by hanging. He was then transferred to San Quentin’s death row, where he continued to make sporadic confessions. Just before his transfer, he admitted to 11 murders and hinted he was responsible for many more – but he wasn’t the only one responsible. “There are others whom I could expose, if anything could be gained by that.” (3, 226) Months later, believing he was going to die from appendicitis, he confessed in “revolting” detail to the warden’s assistant, Clinton Duffy (destined to become a famous prison reformer). Stewart added unlikely new details: That he had trafficked and killed up to 20 young boys, holding them at his ranch for prominent citizens to abuse. He said he was assisted by two ranch hands that he had never mentioned before.
He provided some names, and an investigation was launched, but no evidence of a child sex ring was found. Sanford hadn’t seen any strangers at the ranch; the only child molester there was his uncle. Neighbours knew that Sanford was being beaten and kept out of school, so they probably would have noticed the continuous comings and goings of well-heeled strangers. They hadn’t. And the two ranch hands didn’t exist – no one had seen them, no one knew of them.
As he had done so many times before, Stewart later recanted these confessions and insisted that he had killed no one.

Meanwhile, the LAPD had not heard the last of Christine Collins. With the help of social crusader and beloved Presbyterian minister Gustav Briegleb and a prominent attorney who was willing to work pro bono, Sammy “S.S.” Hahn, she sued Captain J.J. Jones for unlawful confinement, and was awarded a large settlement.
The case brought police abuse of the Code 12 designation to public attention, but it didn’t result in any real changes to the force. Captain Jones quietly retired without being censured in any way by his superiors, still a captain.
Mrs. Collins continued to fight for payment of her settlement into the 1940s. She wished to put the money into her search for Walter.

Stewart also gained at least one supporter. A preacher known as Larry “Cyclone Evangelist” Newgent became Stewart’s spiritual mentor at San Quentin, and argued to California governor C.C. Young that Stewart deserved a new trial because the first one had been “absolutely unfair”. Stewart had evidently convinced him that he hadn’t been allowed to retain a lawyer.

Stewart was originally scheduled to be executed in April, 1929, but a sickly lawyer delayed the appeals process into 1930. The execution date was moved to October 2, 1930.

In a September 29th interview with the press, Louise claimed she had been very ill with flu when she confessed to Walter’s murder. She declared that no one was ever killed at the ranch.
Stewart showed no such familial loyalty. Around the time his mother gave her interview, he wrote to Christine Collins and to the Winslows, promising them that if they visited him at San Quentin, he could tell them everything about the murders of their children.
Mrs. Collins visited on September 30th, just before Stewart was moved to a small holding cell reserved for inmates in the days before their executions. Questioned by Mrs. Collins and warden James Holohan, Stewart said Sanford had killed the boys. Asked where the bodies were buried, he replied, “Ask Mother.”
Yet in a letter to his parents penned on the day of his execution, Stewart assured them he knew they were innocent – Sanford was the sole killer in the family. He signed himself, “Your frightened lonely little boy.”

Mrs. Collins was not discouraged by Stewart’s revelations. She said that until her boy’s body was found, “I’ll cling to hope.” (3, 249)

On October 1st, Mrs. Winslow arrived at the prison. For four hours Stewart refused to see her. He spent this part of his last full day of life in a seemingly jocular, relaxed mood, telling jokes to the guards on suicide watch and continuously playing “Song of Songs” on a phonograph. When he finally agreed to meet with Mrs. Winslow, he said the boys were buried in a ravine about 100 years from his ranch house. But he still insisted they had been killed by Sanford and buried by Louise.
After the meeting, he lapsed into a strange daze, staring into space and utterly ignoring everyone.

The next morning, after writing the letter to his parents (in which he denied all confessions), Stewart staged a dramatic “suicide attempt”, pretending he had swallowed some poison capsules. No one thought he had actually poisoned himself, but his stomach was pumped anyway. So close to the end of his life, he couldn’t resist taking another jab at the man who had tried to save him: He said his father had given him the pills during a prison visit.
The final jab came a few hours later. Stewart gave one last “confession”, this time admitting that he and Sanford buried the bodies… but George had killed Walter. Louise had helped them clean up evidence after all four murders.

He went to the gallows that evening still maintaining his innocence. He asked to be blindfolded before ascending the steps (the first condemned man to do so at San Quentin, according to news reports of the time). His jovial mood of the previous day had vanished completely. He asked, “Will it hurt?”, and pled for his life until the very second the cord was cut to spring the trapdoor.

Aftermath

Some of the other figures in the case didn’t fare much better than Gordon Stewart Northcott. Christine Collins’ attorney, Sammy Hahn, committed suicide in 1957 by tying concrete blocks around his neck and jumping into the pool at his cabin in Tick Canyon.
In his heyday he had been one of California’s most prominent attorneys, defending the famous evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson when she was under investigation for allegedly staging her own abduction in 1926, as well as representing Louise Peete, a conwoman and former prostitute who left a string of suicides, suspicious deaths, and murders in her wake for over 40 years before becoming one of only three women ever executed in the state of California.

Sanford Clark was released from the State Industrial School for Boys in Whittier, California, in January 1931. He was deported to Canada, and settled in his hometown of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
In 1935 he married. He and wife June later adopted two little boys. During WWII he served with the 21st Battery, 6th Field Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery. He worked for the postal service until suffering a major heart attack in the ’70s. He died in 1991, leaving behind numerous grandchildren and a lifetime of quiet community service. Those closest to him say he rarely discussed his experiences on the ranch.

After Stewart Northcott’s execution, the town of Wineville officially changed its name to Mira Loma in an effort to erase the infamy created by the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Only a few streets and one park retain the original name. The ranch itself was dismantled and the land redeveloped.

George Northcott moved to the little town of Parsonsburg, Maryland, where he lobbied for his wife to be paroled. In November 1935 he wrote to prison authorities that there wasn’t any evidence the boys had even been murdered. “In the last year, one of the alleged victims has turned up.” The only evidence was the testimony of an “alleged accomplice, who was of low mentality and a dime magazine, wild-west-reading-fiend.” (3, 252) It’s impossible to know if George believed this crap or if he was simply adopting the family line that Sanford and Jessie cooked up a crazy story out of jealousy and spite . What is clear is that George, for some reason, still loved the wife who had defamed him on the witness stand. He wrote, “I want her, I need her – no better wife ever lived than Louise Northcott.” (3, 253) Even after seeing bodies at the ranch, even after being accused of raping his own son and impregnating his own daughter, even after being told about his son’s final confession, George declared he would always consider his son innocent. Stewart was “simply batty”, his mind “warped, unbalanced”. (3, 249)
In June 1940, having served just 11 years of her life sentence, 71-year-old Louise Northcott joined her husband on his Maryland farm. For the next four years, until their deaths, the Northcotts argued that Louise’s sentence should be overturned due to the “lack of evidence” against her. This was denied. In fact, some of the principals in the case, including prosecutor Earl Redwine and Judge O.K. Morton, who had said to her after passing down a life sentence, “It is only because you are a woman that I do not sentence you to be hanged”, were outraged that Louise had been paroled. (3, 140)

Arthur Hutchens, despite his troubled past, led a more stable life after his California excursion. Confined to Iowa’s State Training School for Boys until he reached the age of 14, he worked as a carnival concessioneer before settlling down in California to train horses and be a jockey – his lifelong passion. He married, fathering a daughter who grew up idolizing her adventurous dad. He died in 1954.

Contrary to the media hype surrounding The Changeling, the Collins/Code 12 scandal did not leave any significant mark on the LAPD. It didn’t even result in signficant changes to the force. The only result of the case was validation of citizen’s complaints about the lawlessness of the LAPD, which had been minimized or ignored by the city’s establishment for years. The gun squad was disbanded in the early ’30s, but official corruption flourished throughout the ’30s under Mayor Frank Shaw - notable for being the first U.S. mayor recalled from public office.
In the ’40s, the spirit of the gun squad was resurrected in an equally lawless Gangster Squad.
In the ’50s, a Red Squad charged with targeting suspected Communists behaved exactly like the gun squad of the Prohibition era. As one police commissioner said of the Red Squad, “The more the police beat them up and wreck their headquarters, the better. Communists have no Constitutional rights and I won’t listen to anyone who defends them.” (1)
The 1990s saw an avalanche of LAPD scandals. First there was the beating of Rodney King and the ensuing riots, then the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) incidents in which more than 70 officers were implicated in “unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and covering up evidence of these activities”. (2)

In the film The Changeling, Mrs. Collins’ hope of finding her son alive is buoyed by the discovery that “David Clay”, a would-be victim of Northcott, managed to escape from the ranch and remain in hiding for years, fearful that he would be blamed for the possible murders of the boys who were confined with him – including Walter Collins. This character is apparently based on a young man who surfaced sometime in 1933 or 1934, a runaway presumed to be a victim of Northcott. I have been unable to find the name of this person, but we do know that he was not one of the Winslow brothers. It’s likely that any young boy who disappeared from the L.A. region during the late 1920s was considered a possible victim of Stewart Northcott.

Christine Collins remarried, but she had no more children and continued to believe that Walter could be alive somewhere. She rejected the confessions of Mrs. Northcott, Stewart Northcott, and Sanford Clark as too contradictory. Curiously, there is no mention of Louise in The Changeling.
While the film admirably highlights the tenacity of a mother’s love, its hopeful conclusion belies the much grimmer facts of the case.

A note on sources:
- Larry Harnisch, a blogger at the L.A. Times online, has posted copies of some of the original Times news stories on the Collins case (including the train station photo recreated in The Changeling). This article is drawn primarily from these articles and James Jeffrey Paul’s exhaustively researched book on the Northcott murders, Nothing Is Strange With You. Many other details were drawn from sources cited in the Wikipedia entry for the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The details of S.S. Hahn’s death come from an article in the June 26, 1957 L.A. Times (available on this page of Harnisch’s blog).

Other sources:
1. official LAPD website history page, 1926-1950 (link)
2. Wikipedia entry on the Rampart scandal (link)
3. Paul, James Jeffrey. Nothing Is Strange With You. Xlibris, 2008.

Posted by SME at 1:48 AM

Labels: , , ,

Advertisement
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. John Maichin
    November 1, 2010 at 1:43 pm | #1

    The “true-life” stories of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders are mostly seen through the movie “Changeling”. The movie does not touch on who Stewart Northcutt really is and how became the person he did, with a terrible family life and no real parental figure to raise him. In the real life his parents knew what Stewart was doing to these poor boys and are accomplices, but the movie fails to mention anything about them and how they raised their son. Compared to the real life events Mrs. Collins was portrayed almost on the dot, besides the fact that she and her son moved around a lot. The movie also fails to mention much about Walters father, only the fact that he took off and that he was not to return. Everything else was historically accurate down to the names of the people to the corruption that occurred in the LAPD. The If Hollywood was just trying to make a quick buck; this movie would not have been so historically accurate. Changeling gives a viewer a complete over view of an horrific crime in a short amount of time touching on the bigger events that sum up everything, without stretching out the movie. Yes, I think a few parts of the true story are missing from the “true-life” events, but prolonging the movie would detract a lot of viewers.

    Hollywood movies that reenact horrific crimes are great, as long as they are historically accurate. Without Changeling many people would never know the event that occurred in Southern California, from the corruption in the Los Angles police department to the trial of Stewart Northcutt. When a movie is made based off historically events, its a way for people to learn about things that they would not have known before. Now a day people would prefer to watch a movie than read a long book, it’s a faster way to learn about true events. As long as a movie is accurate with the details and events of a given situation; it is nothing more than a resource for one to learn about prior events that changed our justice system.

    The development of who Stewart Northcutt becomes is a major scene or flashback that is missing from the movie. His childhood seems to a be a leading factor for how he treated others. Reportedly Northcutts mother treated him and dressed him like a girl; than for Stewart to have no real parental authority is a major reason for his problems. His father was terrified of his own son, so who is going to stop this man. Not having real parental figures leads to Stewart’s problems. The movie also needs to show the development of Northcutts rage for young boys. The physical and mental abuse he placed on his on nephew is the beginning of his rage.

  2. Molly Hoffman
    November 1, 2010 at 10:10 pm | #2

    a. Compare the movie “Changling” to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Did you find the movie “Changling” to be a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, or was it simply “Hollywood” trying to make a buck?

    “Changeling”, directed by Clint Eastwood, attempts to tell the story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders that took place in a town outside of Los Angeles in the 1920’s. Although the basis of the film represents several accurate portrayals of characters and events, it leaves out many important people, details, and events.
    For example, the movie did not fully investigate the entirety of the murders. It briefly touched upon David Clay’s story of Joseph, Winslow, and Walter and their fate, but the “true life” chronicle described in detail all five murders.
    The “true life” chronicle also describes more of the history behind Sanford and Stewart’s family and living situation. It goes into detail about their travels from Canada, Stewart relieving his sister of motherly duties (Sanford), and the relationship between the uncle and nephew. It touches on Stewart’s control of Sanford (raping, chores, beating). The movie leaves out Sanford’s 19-year old sister, Jessie, and her involvement with the crimes.
    The movie “Changling” focuses deeply on Christine Collins emotions and her dissatisfaction with her fake son that was “returned” to her by the LAPD. The movie allows the audience to connect with Mrs. Collins on an emotional level due to their focus on her efforts to get her son back. The chronicle discusses the testimonies by the dentist and doctor, but does not include fine details. For example, when the boy was circumcised after disappearing, his lack of table manners, or his change in height.
    Although “Changling” left out a few important details, I do believe that it accurately told the story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Of course Hollywood had to leave out some details, or it would have made for an even more confusing film. They also had to embellish the role of Jolie so viewers could identify with the struggling mother. Overall, however, I do believe the movie ran as closely as possible to the true life chronicle.

    b. Do you believe it’s good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders? Why or Why not?

    George Santayana, a philosopher in the early 90’s once said “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. I believe this to be true. History needs to be acknowledged even if it portrays the “ugly truth” every so often. People learn from others’ mistakes, and one way to educate the future is to highlight errors in judgment from the past. Movies are an excellent medium to educate the public. Although every detail may not be 100% accurate, it allows the main ideas to be passed along. Historical events will be forgotten over time if Hollywood were to ignore them. For example, Pearl Harbor, the Schindler’s List, or even the Titanic spark audience’s attention and even encourage them to research events in full detail.

    c. If you could change anything about the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, what would you change in the movie? Why? If you wouldn’t change anything in the movie, support your view as well.

    After reading the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I thought the movie had left out important details describing in full detail each murder, the story about each missing boy, and especially Jessie’s involvement. However, I realized that I had read the chronicle over three separate times to actually understand each detail. I therefore would not change this aspect of the movie “Changling”. Towards the end of the movie, the details were being rushed and somewhat thrown at the audience. Although it was not all that confusing, if all of the details were included, it would have been extremely difficult to follow. One aspect I would change about the movie would be the little credit given to Sanford. I believe the movie should have described the relationship he had to Stewart and the abuse he endured.

  3. Kara Knight
    November 2, 2010 at 3:33 pm | #3

    a) While I don’t believe that ‘Changeling’ was just Hollywood trying to make money, I also don’t believe that the movie was a true rendition of the actual truth. I believe that Hollywood wished to follow the story as close as they could while still making it appealing to audiences. In reality, Gordon Stewart Northcott’s mother, Louise, was also a participant in the murders, or at least was very aware of them but did nothing to stop them. Also, the LAPD was not really changed after the incident either.

    b) Do I believe it is good practice to create such movies? I don’t know. Documentaries are made all the time, and no one questions them. Whereas making a movie is generally more geared to entertainment than education. For example, the Titanic, Fahrenheit 9/11, Pearl Harbor, are several movies that are like ‘Changeling’. They are based on true facts but it is up to the director to interpret how he wants the movie to be portrayed. As for it being horrific, it is probably safe to say that there are many other just as, if not more, horrific than this one. So personally I am ambiguous on the topic. If they make a movie and I don’t want to see it because it might be ‘horrific’ then I just won’t go see it.

    c) I don’t think I would change anything in the movie. This is because the way the movie was portryayed was well done, given the limitations of a movie. Adding Northcott’s mother in the mix might have confused audiences, because his father might have also been added to the mix. And due to time constraints, putting all that information would have made an already long movie longer. As for the ending, I enjoyed how it seemed like the bad guys were getting what they deserved (the LAPD), and if they had been accurate, the ending might not have been so positive. I like happy endings.

  4. Alicia Brown
    November 2, 2010 at 9:52 pm | #4

    a. I believe “Changling” is a mostly true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. While watching the movie it’s assumed the story is just that, a story created from someone’s creative brain. Unfortunately, the main events in this movie actually took place. For the most part “Changling” accurately portrayed the events that took place in the tragedy this movie was based on. The directors of “Changling” added a little bit of Hollywood here and there but Walter’s disappearance, the police investigation, the wrong boy being delivered to Ms. Collins, the murders, the trials, etc. are all events that actually happened in Wineville, California.
    There are a few minor differences between the movie and the events that took place during this disaster. Walter really disappeared walking to a movie matinee instead of being left at home while his mother worked. Walter’s father was in prison yet in the movie Ms. Collins says he left them. In real life Northcott had been repeatingly raping his nephew and other young boys. The murders were originally discovered by Sanford’s sister when she came to check up on her brother but the entire family covered up the murders. Northcott’s mother and brother were also involved in the murders of these boys and others. Northcott and his mother continually changed their stories about how they murdered Walter. Unlike the movie, Walter wasn’t in the chicken coop with other boys and escaped with them. He was there alone and the other boys came after him. Sanford left the ranch when Northcott’s father helped him escape with his sister. Northcott found the boy though and brought him back to the ranch where repeated escape attempts were unsuccessful. Eventually police officers did come to take Sanford away from the ranch but they were unaware of the murders that were taking place. The scene in the prison also was slightly different in that Northcott spoke with Ms. Collins and Mrs. Winslow but gave them false information. Finally, Mrs. Collin’s story didn’t change the LAPD. They continued in their corrupt fashion for many years.
    Every detail of “Walter’s” return to his mother, the police department’s refusal that the boy was indeed Walter, and the institutionalization of Ms. Collin’s were all completely accurate portrayals of what actually took place in Wineville. The investigation and trial are also accurately portrayed in “Changling.” Another point the movie portrayed correctly was Ms. Collin’s fight against the police department with the minister Gustav Briegleb and attorney Sammy Hahn although as stated above it didn’t have the same effect the movie portrays.

    b. I do believe Hollywood should create movies based off real stories. These movies help bring awareness to the problems our society faces; problems like police corruption and serial killers running rampant. When people see movies like these it reinforces how precious life is and how we must always remember we aren’t indestructible. Things like these can happen to anyone if we aren’t careful. This movie also shows that you should stand up for what you know is right even if it means challenging the whole police department.

    c. I would definitely include the involvement of Northcott’s family in the movie “Changling.” They played a huge part in the murders and going on’s of the ranch and they are never even mentioned in the movie. The LAPD looks like they make drastic changes to their department after the removal of the captain from the force but in reality nothing changed. The movie shouldn’t show this if it didn’t actually happen. Finally, to make the movie more similar to the true story, the scene with Walter escaping with other boys should not be included. The other boys came after Walter and even they didn’t escape.

  5. Danielle d
    November 3, 2010 at 1:04 pm | #5

    A) The “true life” story was very similar to the hollywood film “Changling”, except that a few details from the “true life” story was not incorporated into the film. This may be because of the time limit that the film had to be, or because the director simply didnt think it was necessary. A few things that were missing, was the fact that they didnt talk about where Steward came from and why he came to the US. Secondly, they didnt really go into detail about how Steward raped and beat his nephew, Stanford, frequently. It didnt touch on how he bought dozens of young boys to the ranch, raped them and then released them, threatening that he would find and kill them.
    The way in which Walter disappeared was also altered. In the movie, his mother left him home, but in the real story, he disappeared walking to the movies. After Walter was taken to the ranch, Walter wasn’t in the chicken coop with other boys and escaped with them. He was there alone and the other boys came after him. The movie also leaves out the envolvement of Steward’s sister with the murders, or the knowledge of them.
    The movie was very accurate about the reaction of the LAPD towards Walter’s mother, Christine, and how corrupt they really were.

    B) I do believe that it is good practice for hollywood to make movies of horrific stories as such, because it makes people aware of how sick and insane people are. Hopefully this will make them more causous of leaving their children, or letting them go places alone. It is basically an eye-opener. With those things in mind it might probably prevent some crimes from occuring.

    C) I dont think I would change anything in the movie, because it was so precise and detailed just like the “true life”. I wouldnt add the details about how or why Steward came to the US, or how he killed a mexican, becasue the story was made to focus on Walter Collins. They made it engaging, and to the point. I believe that they did an amazing job portraying the real life story from many many years ago to the movie “Changling.”

  6. scowee
    November 3, 2010 at 6:54 pm | #6

    a) The movie “Changling” did a pretty good job sticking close to the real story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The plot was just about all correct with the police being corrupt and Gordon Stewart kidnapping young boys and killing them. There are a few differences from the movie to the real story. In the movie it said that Walter Collins may or may not have been killed. However in this story it said that Mr. Stewart and Louise had killed him with an ax. Another difference I noticed was that in the movie Walter and a few other boys, I believe the Winslow brother, had escaped and ran away. This is why one of the brothers was found eventually and had not been killed by Stewart. One thing the movie got right was about the boy that was abandoned and the police were convinced it was Walter Collins. So the police gave this boy to Mrs. Collins but within a short period of time she returned him to the police because that was not her son. However since the police had reported that they solved the case and did not want to go back on their word they claimed that Mrs. Collins had mental problems and they sent her to a psychiatric under “Code 12”. They said she could not leave until she admitted that was her son which of course was not hers. The movie showed this wonderfully I thought, they hit all the main points and showed how corrupt the LAPD was at this time. However in the article it says that Mrs. Collins “was released quietly from the psych hospital which is far from true in the movie. She had her lawyers involved and they had everyone released from the hospital because of what the doctors were doing to the patients. One important thing that was not portrayed in the movie was Stewarts family such as Louise or his sister Jessie. Louise was a big part of who Stewart had become and she had also helped with the killings such as with Walter Collins. In the end she was convicted of murder of Walter Collins.
    b) Yes I do believe this is perfectly fine for Hollywood to do because it informs us what has happened before but in an interesting way. Yes Hollywood movies usually aren’t 100 percent accurate but they do hit the main points of the events that had taken place. I would much rather watch a movie on this event rather than reading an article or a book about it. I love watching movies that are based on true stories because it is very interesting and knowing that it’s based on a true story makes it that much better. I think Hollywood does a great job with making a movie on true stories and they should continue to do so.
    c) I would add the fact that Stewart’s family played a major role in what he was like. Especially his mother, I think she had the greatest influence on him and helped him kill some of the boys such as Walter Collins. I would of also liked to see that Jesse, Stewarts sister, tried to get back her nephew multiple times from her brother. Other than that I feel like this movie did a tremendous job hitting all the key points and followed the story line very well. Obviously Hollywood is going to have to add in a few things to make it more entertaining for the audience, even the this story itself is very entertaining.

  7. Rudi B
    November 3, 2010 at 10:49 pm | #7

    (A) After watching The Changeling, and reading about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, my opinion is that the movie gives a good interpretation. It was not entirely accurate, yet a majority of the facts, for example Arthur Hutchens wanting to come to Los Angeles to meet Tom Mix, were in line with actual events. After reading the entirety of the case surrounding the Chicken Coop Murders and Walter Collins, I would see it impossible for Hollywood to create an exact film rendition, unless the movie was five hours long, or a trilogy. I don’t think the audience’s attention could be held that long. Putting a story, that on paper is confusing and with many parts misunderstand and not fully accounted for, onto the screen is a demanding task. Even though huge pieces of the story were left out, I don’t see it as Hollywood making a buck, they are trying to tell the story in the most effective way it can be told, without losing the audience in the tangled dysfunctional mess of the Northcott family, the corruption of LAPD, and the unimaginable mistaken identity of a missing boy.

    (B) I would not call it “practice” for Hollywood to make these kinds of movies, but they are desired society. Film is an art, and artists draw inspiration from what goes on around them. Crime is an inevitable aspect of life in a society. Many crime movies are often somewhat based on true events, just not in the entirety of the actual facts. It is a way of seeing what it is like in other parts of the world. Hollywood is looked down at times for making things over top adding elements that are not possible in reality. I think what can be appreciated in The Changeling is that no over the top special effects are included. The story speaks for itself, and in doing so creates its own captivating suspense.

    (C) I would not change much about the film, as I feel it does good job of creating a balance between facts and movie. But they are a few parts that I wish I could have seen. The actual taking of Walter I was confused about. I first deduced that Northcott and Sanford actual went to the Collins’ house and took Walter, but after reading, the abduction occurred while Walter was walking to the matinee movie (the matinee movie that Christine Collins promised to take Walter to but couldn’t after she was called into work, according to the film). I would also like more about Northcott and his family. We get a tidbit of his dysfunctional family in the scene of him returning to Canada, but nothing more in depth such as murder not being in uncommon his family pool. Instead the film heavily focuses the corruption of the LAPD, incidents that are not entirely according to actual events.

  8. Michael Smith
    November 4, 2010 at 12:30 am | #8

    A. It is crucial to understand that Hollywood movie making is a business, and for a business to be successful it must give its buyers or viewers the best most entertaining film they can. For this reason every-time one watches a hollywood movie they should take it with a grain of salt, because what happened in reality might not what will make the movie the most money…
    With this being said I was very impressed with the Hollywood depiction of “Changling.” Although the movie kept the a lot facts of the actual stories such as how Mrs. Collins was portrayed as a single mother who was hard working for a cable company, how the L.A police were extremely corrupted and sent Mrs. Collins to a mental institution for no good reason, and how the truth was finally uncovered. For Hollywood reasons I noticed that some aspects of the real story where either left out of changed. I noticed that Stewards background information was not a focus of the movie but is crucial to know because it helps explain the reasons why he was such a violent human being. Also the role of his mother Louise was left out as a murderer. In my opinion this was left out to make Steward look worse and more ruthless doing at he murders on his own. Another small change I noticed was that Mr. Collins did not run away from his family when Walter was born but actually was serving time in Folsom prison. I think this might have be done to make Mrs. Collins seem more strong for moving on without her husband. Also I was under the impression that Walter was kidnapped while his mother was at work and he was in the house, when actually it was reported that he was kidnapped on hi way back from a movie. Also in the story I read above it was noted that an older Italian couple was seen loitering around the Collins neighborhood days before the kidnapping. This was left out of the movie. Although there were some changes to the movie that happened in real life I was satisfied with how much truth was in the film.

    B. I believe that it is perfectly fine for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville chicken coupe murders. First of all I think filmmakers should be allowed to make a movie on whatever they want just because we live in America and should have the freedom to express ourselves. I think it was actually very helpful that this film was made because it brought to attention this incident to American years after the crimes were committed. The film showed how police corruption is not impossible and has happened in the United States. But also I thought it was a terrific film portraying a mothers instinct and lover for her child and would stop at nothing, not even police to find her son.

    c. Honestly I would not change anything from this movie. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and its enlightened me on this chicken coupe case that I was never aware of before. I respect the filmmakers for keeping so much truth in the film, many times Hollywood movies based on real events get changed so much that it does not even seem like the same event. It seemed like the focus on the movie was the story of Mrs. Collins, so in order to highlight some aspects of her or the story the filmmakers had to distort portions of the truth. However with this being said I would enjoy to watch a documentary on this case opposed to a Hollywood film so I can see everything in truth.

    Michael Smith

  9. pearl
    November 4, 2010 at 3:27 pm | #9

    A. The movie “Changling” and the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coops murders varied in certain ways, the movie omitted several event from the real life story however it did not distort the story in any way. And first and foremost it’s important to point out that, the movie was not about the chicken coop murders. The movie was about the story of Christine Collins and the corruption of the LAPD at the time, the chicken coop murders were involved in the story because her son was a victim in this case. Therefore it makes sense that the entire story behind the murders and the murderers was not laid out in the movie. Had the story been primarily on these murders, it would have been logical to give the entire background of the killer, all the crimes he committed, and all the details of this case. But it wasn’t so the writers summed up the story giving a reliable account of the murder case to fit in the already extensive story of Christine Collins. Had the entire murder story been included in detail it would have made the movie 4 hours long and would have taken the focus off the main objective of this movie. As the article mentions, the real story did not have much of an impact on the LAPD department, yet it was a violent time of history that the movie was intended to depict.

    The main difference in the true story of the chicken coop murders and the movie was that chunks of the story were taken out. In the movie Stewart Northcott was portrayed as being the sole killer with his nephew there to witness it all. However, in real life his parents, and his niece were also present, with his mother Louise being of considerable involvement in this case and having participated in the murders. She was in fact said to be implicated in the death of Walter Collins. Several accounts of the family members also confirmed Walter’s death, the question of which person committed the act is uncertain, but we know for sure he was killed, something that the movie did not confirm, by the end of the movie the audience still believes he could be alive. Other difference between the two, contain to the events of the disappearance. In the movie, Walter was supposed to be going to the movies with his mom when she got called to work and he stayed at home that day, when Christine came home, he had disappeared. In the article they say Walter was on his way to a movie matinee. Christine Collin’s husband in real life was serving a sentence in prison, an important detail in the story because it probably affected the way the police approached this case. Like the article mentions, they maybe believed someone her husband knew could be responsible for Walter’s disappearance. It was most likely omitted in the movie because it would have made Christine’s character less sympathetic and the audience could have also doubted what happened to Walter. The article also mentions how Stewart used to molest and abuse Sanford, his nephew. In the movie we knew Stewart forced him to participate in the murders but I don’t recall him saying he was molested. Which is another important part of the case, Stewart was a pedophile on top of a murdered who molested an unknown number of children in addition to the murders, and he was charged for Sanford’s abuse in court. This was not included in the movie perhaps because it would have made the story longer and complicated it more. In relation to this, Stewart also fired his lawyers and represented himself at trial, leading to him cross examining Sanford on the witness stand, asking him why he never protested to the killings. Which was not shown in the movie, it would have made Stewart look even more heartless but once again would have complicated the plot of the movie some more. In the movie Sanford is found when the police officer comes and gets him because he is an illegal immigrant, but they did not show his numerous escape attempts, where Stewart always ended up finding him and dragging him back to the farm, it was heartbreaking to read. The true story is even more terrifying than the one portrayed in the movie, which is due to the exclusion of certain parts of the story. But like I said before giving every detail of Stewart’s past would have made the movie hours longer. The circumstances when the found Arthur Kent, the boy who passed for Walter were also different, he was found wandering alone not left in a café by his so-called father in the movie. Christine also went to Dekalb to pick up the son LAPD said was hers he was not brought to her in LA like the movie shows. Christine’s entire story however, was depicted perfectly, just like in real life when you compare to the facts in the article to the movie. Jessie, Stewart’s niece is actually the one who reported him to the American consulate in Vancouver, and that is why immigration officers were looking for him, this explanation is omitted in the movie since Jessie was not even mentioned in the story. And when the officers came to pick them up Stewart was not having car trouble on the side of the road like in the movie, he was on the farm and ran off. Subsequently in the movie, Stewart goes back to Canada, but they didn’t say how an attorney led him to do so. In the movie, Stewart was charged with the murder of numerous children the article however, discloses that he was charged with the murder of three children including Walter, the murder of a man, and a count of sodomy. The movie also doesn’t reveal all the goose chases he sent the police on in search of the bodies. It’s not until his transfer to death row that he admitted to at least 11 murders. And the movie did not mention Stewart’s “spiritual mentor” who got his execution postponed. In addition, Christine was not the only parents Stewart asked to talk to before his execution he also asked to talk to the parents of two brothers he had also killed. In the movie Stewart doesn’t tell Christine what she wants to know, however, in real life he told her to go ask his mother where the bodies are buried. It was normal to ignore that part since the mother is not mentioned in the movie. And he told Mrs. Windslow, the mother of the brothers where her sons were buried. So there were several differences between the movie and the true story, yet, most of the events that were cut out were in attempts to shorten the story. And Hollywood did do a good job of representing Stewart and what happened. They did not alter any facts or the nature of the acts that were committed. They on the contrary excluded details that made this story seem less twisted than it actually was so they weren’t just trying to make a quick buck.

    B. I think it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes as the Wineville Chicken Coop murders because it informs the public about cases which already took place. In my opinion the stories with fictional murders and serial killers are worst, because it gives the psychopaths out there even more twisted ideas. But I see no harm in informing audiences about past events. This was an important case, yet, for people like me that were not even born at the time, I did not know about this case until I saw the movie. So it sheds light on news events that are interesting to know about. And to know that sometimes reality can be even scarier than fiction, there are monsters capable of things like this and if something like the chicken coop murders happened in a time where it was safe for children to play in the streets, imagine what could happen now where its impossible to leave children unsupervised anywhere. These true events have an impact on you and give you something to think about.

    C. If I were to change something about the movie “Changling” to make it similar to “true life” it would be mainly to have made it clear for the people watching the movie that Walter was really dead. The movie is about Christine and she believed her son was still alive especially after they found David Clay who had managed to escape the farm. But the article does not say that Walter also tried escaping and got left behind when he went to help David like is pictured in the movie. Maybe the writers had another source that contributed this information we never know. Anyways, after this information, Christine was hopeful she would one day find her son, that was her perspective and it’s understandable to end the movie this way. But I still think the movie should have made it clearer for the audience that Walter really was dead. Because we leave the movie thinking maybe Walter was still alive as well, maybe it was the intention, but I would of liked to know the reality of it, or they could at least have written it out at the end with all the other facts they wrote since this is based on a true story. They could have also included that Stewart was also a molester I don’t think it would have impacted the plot that much and he would have been portrayed as an even worst monster. From reading the article, Stewart and his mother were complete nutcases, it’s hard to even believe the nonsense that came out of those people’s mouths. The movie did a good job of showing how Stewart kept changing his statements and how unstable he was considering they didn’t develop his personal story that much, and how he liked talking to the press. But the true events reflect an even crazier, scary, unpredictable, unstable person who on top of it all was a pathological liar. He was the kind of person that would of driven you insane just listing to him, and the movie did reflect that aspect of it, which was effectively done. Overall, I liked the movie, and the story that was told through it. I think it was very representative of the real life story, the characters were well portrayed, and the murder story was pretty accurate so except for a couple details I wouldn’t change anything about the movie.

  10. Kelly Small
    November 4, 2010 at 5:50 pm | #10

    The movie “Changling” touches upon the story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and the abduction of Walter Collins. However the movie did leave out many important details. In the movie, Stewarts family is not mentioned except for his nephew. They also leave out the relationship that Stewart had with his nephew and the pedophilia. They left out Stewarts mother, who also played a very important part in the murders of the children and also had a very strange relationship with Stewart. The movie also fails to mention that Walters father was in prison, he didn’t leave the family because he was afraid of responsibility. “Changling” also makes the audience believe that Ms. Collins was able to take down the LAPD and stop the corruption but in “true life” it claims that there wasn’t much change, JJ Jones retired and wasn’t looked down upon from the force. Even though some details were left out of the movie I believe that “Changling”, for the most part, was a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Of course the director was not able to fit in every little detail and I believe that he felt that he was giving the audience a general idea of what happened in Wineville.

    I do believe it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes. For me, if the movie “Changling” was never made I probably would have never heard about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I think that by making movies about events that have happened in the past it is a good way for people to learn about history. I also believe that by making a movie about such horrific crimes it gives people a different perspective. Sometimes by watching something on film it leaves more of an impact on a person than just reading about it.

    If I could change anything, I would want Stewarts family to be a part of the movie. I think that they played such an important part in Stewarts life, especially his mother. After watching the movie you would never know that his mother was involved and the strange relationship that they had. You also would have never known that Stanford was beaten and raped by his Uncle. By adding the family members in the audience could have seen how stange and unfortunate Stewarts upbringing was.

  11. Jordyn C
    November 4, 2010 at 8:27 pm | #11

    A)The movie ‘Changling” did touch upon the The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. It was pretty truthful all in all. There were a few differences however. It seemed in the movie, lots of major details were left out. The biggest one was how the family was involved in the murders. Stewart’s mom played a huge role in the actual case, whereas she wasn’t even mentioned in the movie. Another difference was how the police didn’t really get better in the skew of things like they did in the movie. There was hardly any impact at all. Also, in the movie there wasn’t much background on Stewart’s nephew and their relationship. There were a lot more murders and incidents that actually happened that was left out in the case. If they did that, however, I think it would have made the movie too complicated to follow as well as too many horrific things that happened. The movie did well at showing what generally happened on the farm.
    B)I believe it is very important that Hollywood makes films about horrific incidents like the Chicken Coop Murders in Winneville. Like we have always been in taught in school, we learn from our history. Presenting a story and history like this through entertainment is a smart way to get people to realize what happens in life and realization that it shouldn’t happen. Maybe not every detail is portrayed in the movie, but it is entertainment and it gives the public a general idea of what happened and the consideration we should learn from it. Movies such as Titanic and Pearl Harbor had done just that. They are classic movies about our history and even though it’s presented through entertainment, the messages are still getting out there. People are probably more willing to watch a movie about history then read it in their textbooks.
    C)I do think a few details could be added to the movie. I believe Stewart’s family should have been presented and involved more in the movie. It would explain kinda why he was so crazy and how he was raised has made him such a way. His mother was left out in the movie, so I would change that. I was surprised to read that in the article and I think it plays a crucial role in understanding Stewart and his relationship with his mother and the murders. I would also add a little more about Stewart’s nephew and his background. Add the fact his sister was involved and tried to help him escape. The nephew was abused and raped too, so I think that should be added into the movie. I understand the movie shouldn’t be made too complicated and long, but a little more detail on Stewart’s background and mother could be added. That way it would be even more like the real life incident. Overall though the movie was a pretty good story of what actually happened.

  12. Sarah McConnell
    November 4, 2010 at 8:52 pm | #12

    A) The movie Changling was a Hollywood blockbuster that had an amazing cast and an amazing script. Although this script is loosely based on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, this movie is really about a mother’s struggle to find her son. Angelina Jolie played Christine Collins, with the true emotion and stubbornness of a mother who had a kidnapped child. Her tenacity and perseverance ultimately brought national attention to her missing child. She was ridiculed, persecuted, and deemed a bad mother. As any mother would, she refused to believe that Walter was dead until they found his body. Her acting sparked such emotion in mothers all around the world, showing the true fear of losing a child. I believe the emotions that were written and acted out through this movie were true to life to the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. However, the movie was not really about the murders themselves, it was more based on a mother’s struggle to find her son.

    B) I think it is important for Hollywood to make movies out of horrific crimes. These movies can peak interest, spark public emotion and reaction that were never realized prior, and these movies can almost become public service announcements to a certain degree. This particular movie showed how a mother’s insistence of knowing her child was ignored, and how police corruption can happen at any level of law enforcement. Although the Captain was never fully held accountable for his actions by the LAPD, his name is associated with corruption and shame. The movie about Adam Walsh’s murder showed the public at large how important it is to keep your children with you during a shopping trip and never take a familiar place for granted. Ted Bundy’s movie showed the true insanity of a serial killer and how he can be as handsome as the boy next door (and not all gross looking as we would like to think serial killers are so they can be easily identified.

    C) For me, Angelina’s portrayal of Christine Collins was spot on, and I would not change anything about it. However, if you were to truly make a movie about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, the story of Stewart, Sanford and Louise would have to be more prominent. The subject of pedophilia, rape, and murder of children is not something that Hollywood would truly get behind. I don’t see them making a film that would be true to life for this particular crime and criminals. These are not subjects that the common person would pay money to go see. However, basing the movie on a mother’s struggle to find her son and the corruption of the LAPD is easier to market and promote.

  13. Chelsea McCormick
    November 5, 2010 at 1:30 pm | #13

    A.
    Creators of movies have a tendency to over exaggerate films that are supposed to be “a true story” and usually alter many of the facts in order to draw a more significant audience. However, with the movie Changling, I find it to be a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The creators of this movie really allowed the audience to see the true story of what happened with these gruesome murders in California. The story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders were so horrid and seemingly unbelievable, that “Hollywood” did not really need to change the story too much in order to get a captive audience.
    Overall, Changling tells the story of the twisted murders committed by Gordon Stewart Northcott very accurately. There are some details of true story that were left out of the film, however due to obvious restrictions on the length of the movie, every detail was probably not essential to the creators. One of most significant details that I noted while reading “the true story” which was not included in the movie, was the background of the Northcott family and how actively involved Stewart’s mother, Louise Northcott was in the murders of the boys. It is described that Louise was a significant figure at the ranch where the murders were committed and that she stood by her son’s side during most of the killings. It was even noted that Louise committed some of the murders herself. There is a greater background of Gordon Stewart Northcott than what is portrayed in the movie. Although, it was probably very difficult to effectively render the mind of a serial killer such as Stewart Northcott, he was truly a sickly and perverse individual. Between the time that he got caught and his execution, he was continuously confessing and un-confessing to various murders which ultimately left police officials on several “wild goose chases.”
    In addition to Louise Northcott being completely left out of the movie, the noteworthy killings of the Winslow brothers was also an important detail that was not included. The story of Walter Collins and his mother, Christine Collins seems to take the spotlight in the movie with describing the murders of the many little boys. However in actuality, the Winslow brothers’ murders was also an important investigated matter of the time. Christine Collins was indefinitely the façade of those who were challenging the LAPD, so that is potentially why her story could have taken the front reigns in Changling.
    There are many more details of what went on at the Northcott’s ranch that were not included in the film, however I know that it would be seemingly impossible to include all of the background in addition to the odd twists and turns that happened through the time of the murders and prior to them as well. Ultimately, Changling portrayed the case of Walter Collins and his mother, Christine Collins, to have significantly changed the face of the corruption with the LAPD. Although there were several changes made with the Capitan and other higher-up officials, the LAPD’s reputation was not completely tarnished due to what happened. Corruption still continued for many more years to come. The public was not nearly as aware of what was going on “behind closed doors” as the movie lead the audience to believe. Overall, not many of the facts or details in Changling were incorrect; there were just some things that were left out that were important to the story. However compared with most “true story” movies that are created in Hollywood, Changling is definitely a frontrunner when it comes to accuracy.

    B.
    I believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders because stories such as this one are really something that our country should remember and be aware of. There are so many outrageous things and people that are in our world and I believe that it is important to take note of them and remember what can happen. Wineville, California was such a quiet town prior to the discovery of a serial killer that turned their small-town upside down, ultimately causing the citizens to have to change the name of the town. The murders of several and potentially dozens of small children is something that happened not too long ago, and I think that it is important to make people aware that situations such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders do happen. It is always beneficial to be a cautious in our world due to the terrible things that can happen, and therefore by Hollywood making movies about these issues and occurrences, it can really open people’s eyes about who could be living in our country or in our world. It is also good practice for Hollywood to make these movies in order to remember all of the hundreds and thousands of people that were affected by horrific events such as mass murders, or other horrible dealings. These events should not become something that is forgotten with time, and through renditions of them via Hollywood, they can always be remembered.

    C.
    In order to make the movie Changling more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I would include the involvement of Gordon Stewart Northcott’s family, other than his cousin, Sanford. They evidentially played such an impactful role on Stewart’s characteristics and actions. I would especially include Louise Northcott in the movie because she is said to have been right there along with Stewart for a majority of the time that the murders were being committed at the ranch. It is said that she potentially had just as twisted of a mind as her son did. I think the details about the family life of the Northcott’s and how they all played a role surrounding what happened at the ranch is so essential to the story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. By providing more evidence into what went on at the ranch, I think Changling could have more accurately displayed the overall story of the murders and those that committed them. Although it would most likely be difficult to include true details about the Northcott family and the ranch due to the entire family having conflicting and ever changing stories about what actually went on behind the scenes. Overall, I thought that the true story about what happened was very accurately depicted in the movie. The characters were well played, especially the characters of the Christine Collins, a distraught mother, and Stewart Northcott, a fervent serial killer. In my opinion, the movie Changling is one of Hollywood’s recent best creations.

  14. Natasha Sackett
    November 6, 2010 at 12:23 pm | #14

    a) After reading what actually happened, I think there was a lot of truth in this movie, but at the same time a lot of stuff was missing. Instead of focusing more on Stewart and giving details on what he was doing, We see more of Mrs. Collins (Anjelina Jolie) in the movie. I believe that this is more Hollywood trying to make money because Anjelina is attractive and everybody wants to see her and not have to watch the less attractive Stewart for the whole movie. It also is focusing more on a mom desperate to find her little boy instead of the gruesomeness of the murders and what Stewart was doing; again going with the more attractive aspect.

    b)I think that it is a VERY good thing for Hollywood to make movies about real life horrific crimes like this as long as there is more fact than fiction in the movie. I believe when they do this, it educates people who watch the movie in a better way than reading a book or an article. It allows people to learn about what has happened and what people are capable of doing even if they do not read or watch the news. The movies makes the learning more fun and a lot easier to sit through.

    c) I think that one of the main things I would do to change the movie to make it more like the true story is; I would add Stewart’s mom as she had a huge part in all of it. I would also, even though it is not as awesome as if it actually happened, I would leave out that Mrs. Collins was able to make the code 12 thing go away since they said that did not actually happen. Two other things I would change is, as beautiful as Anjelina Jolie is, I would want the movie to focus more on the chicken farm and exactly what Stewart was doing, going into more detail. And also, I would want, instead of it seeming like Mrs. Collins was a bad mom for leaving her son home alone as she went to work, work in that thing about him going to the movies so she does not look as bad.

  15. Amber F.
    November 6, 2010 at 11:47 pm | #15

    A) The movie “Changling” and the actual description of what happened in the chicken coop murders seem to have a lot of the same characteristics. The actual story as a lot more facts than the movie depicted. In the movie the main focus was on Mrs. Collins, the missing boy Walter Collins the corruption of the police and Mr. Northcott. While in the actual story it seems like family was involved a lot more than anyone could have guessed when watching the movie. In the actual story the Northcott family was involved with the murders and the whole family seemed to be crazy in general. Then in the real story you learn about the different escape attempts that were being done for the nephew Stanford Clark. You learn how Gordan’s Northcotts mom would follow along with the plots because she liked how her son loved her so much. In the movie the viewer does not get any information on the family of the Nothcotts, you only here about Gordan. You also do not here about the escape attempts that are happening. Also there is a lot more information provided in the story about the boy that was pretending to be Walter Collins that you did not know about in the movie. Something that is similar in the movie and then in the actual story is how corrupt the police were at that time and how they had the power do almost whatever they wanted, like throwing Mrs. Collins into a mental institution because of a code 12, which in reality was just because she knew the by was not really her’s. Also both the movie and the story showed how Mr. Northcott would always change his story about who he killed or how many people he actually killed. Overall the movie had a very good depiction of the whole story and gave the viewers a correct description of all the events that had occurred.

    B) I believe that it is very good practice that Hollywood makes movies of true stories, even though they might be horrific. It makes people realize events that have happened. I know that if I had not watched this movie I would have never known about the chicken coop murders, and it is such a tragic story and something that people should be made aware of. More Hollywood stories should be like this although not all the information goes exactly how the story is, it is still a correct representation of a event that is in history. It makes learning more interesting when you can watch a movie, instead of having to do research. And now that I have watched the movie I was extremely interested in the actually story. I believe that if more movies were made of true events it could spark individuals do then accomplish looking up more information.

    C)I wouldn’t change to much of the movie I believe that the depiction was done every well. I would like to see more of Gordan’s mother involved in the movie because she seemed to be involved a lot in the actual story, and I think it would help the story line as well just to have more information to go along with. Other than that with all the information that is in the real story it would be very hard for them to fit it in a movie that is about 2 hours long. So I believe that Hollywood did a very good job of getting the important details and fitting them into a movie.

  16. Justine Simone
    November 7, 2010 at 2:36 am | #16

    A) After watching “Changling” I do believe the film was a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Although the film left out many important details, they still did an excellent job retelling the true-life story. First, Christine’s husband was imprisoned in the actual case, while in the movie she had left him. Although this was not accurate, I felt it made the movie better because viewers might have seen her as a determined and loving single mother. Additionally, during the movie, Walter went missing at home while in the true story he was walking somewhere. In spite of the fact that there are several details missing from the story I felt they included the most important aspects. For example, if the movie had investigated every murder, explained how Northcott had been frequently raping his nephew and other boys, and explained the living arrangements of Stewart’s family, they would have not been able to show Christine Collins emotions in such depth. The filmmakers clearly cannot put in every detail in the film so they chose the more important ones. For instance, the reaction of the LAPD towards Walters mother was very accurate. They did a great job of showing the audience what an annoyance Christine was becoming to the authorities and how she was treated after being sent to a psychiatric institution under Code 12. Furthermore, I felt the aspects they did change during the movie benefitted the story. For example, in the article it said she was released very quietly while in the movie she caused quite the scene. I felt the huge exhibition she caused had a greater impact during the movie, possibly sending the message of how powerful women can be and the difference they can make. Overall, I felt the movie was a fantastic rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.

    B) People typically love seeing real events transpire on screen. Directors and producers are often creating films based on real life events because the audiences are typically more interested. However, there is a huge amount of research involved to make sure the story isn’t being completely compromised for the sake of the movie making. I feel if the industry is correctly portraying the real life occurrence they should be able to make a film out of it because it can educate individuals on specific cases. However, if only some aspects are true then they should not be able to because the public can be misinformed. These movies, if correctly depicted can bring awareness to many aspects of our society while still being entertaining.

    C) Looking back, I would have not changed anything about the film because I felt it was very informing. The main focus of the film was to show the police corruption and how they could have easily sent women to a psychiatric home without cause. I feel if the film went more in depth with Stewart’s family, Christine’s husband being imprisoned, or even how much of a role the nephew played, it would have distorted the message. The movie was perfect the way it was because while informing the public of the case it still maintained an introduction, body, and conclusion without dragging on.

  17. Brittany
    November 7, 2010 at 8:02 pm | #17

    A) The film “Changeling” is a good basic rendition of what happened in the Winville chicken coop murders. The movie really only touches on what happened at the Wineville ranch, but despite this I believe the film was not, “Hollywood trying to make a buck.” “Changeling” puts much more emphasis on Mrs. Collin’s grief and trauma of having her son go missing, and how little the LAPD did to help. All the LAPD wanted was to write a good name for themselves in the case of Walter Collins however, Mrs. Collins put up a fight and didn’t simply give them what they wanted. In the end according to the true-life story Mrs. Collins didn’t make much of an impact, but in the film she did. Althoug many aspects of what really happened in this case were left out of the film, I believe it still made a big impact.

    B)I believe it is a good idea for Hollywood to make films like these because it reminds people the real world is still out there and these horrific crimes can happen to you despite what you think. It is better to give people a film about the cold truth of what can happen in life than some fairy tale that may never come true. Also, in the case of “Changeling” it shows that the people we believe are the good guys (the police) are not always the good ones. Also, although these films on true-life events tend to leave out information they still spike people’s interest on the topic and case. Personally, when I see films based on true stories I like to research the case after to get more information about it. In the end real life events depicted through film are educational.

    C)There is little I would change about the film, “Changeling,” however there are a few things I would maybe add. I feel as though it would have been important to give more background information on Stewart and the fact that his family was more involved in the Wineville chicken coop murders. However, that is all I would change. The film is long so adding to much more would lose the audience’s interest. I do think the information on Stewart and his family is important though because the question people always have when it comes to crimes is, “Why?” Why did the person do what they did? Although nothing is an excuse for committing a crime, knowing a person’s reasons gives you more insight into who they are. Other than that I think the film was great. The audience could really feel the emotion and loss that Mrs. Collins was going through.

  18. Hayden Buttner
    November 7, 2010 at 8:46 pm | #18

    A) After watching the movie “Changling” and reading and watching about the Winville Chicken Coop murders that it is accurate and follows the story about the murders. I do believe though that there are some things that are changed because of things they could or could not show on film. They changed small things so that the story would fit into a movie and made it very close to inform people about what happened, and people can learn from watching it. One thing they did leave out that they could have added was the influence that the family had and how his enviornment was when he was gorwing up. Many movies that are based on true stories are changed just a little to make the movie fit better and thats what I think they did with this.

    B)I dont have a problem with them making a movie about this. I believe you should wait some time to let thigns settle some and let some emotions calm. I think that making this movie has helped people view what has happened and may even learn from things like this. I dont think it is bad practice for them to make these things, as long as there is interest from the public then I think it is a good thing. Movies like these may also be able to draw interest from people into subjects and may be able to learn they have a love for something they never knew about. It may show them things that will help them in the future. I think its good for people to be educated so I think that if the movie is accurate then they are good ways for people to be able to learn about many things that have happened.

    C) I believe that the movie showed a good example of what happened and I think that the changed they made were done to help the movie fit. I feel that there were some events that were left out that could have been added in like the Northcott’s family, his mother had a major influence in things and his family was a major reason for the way he turned out. I thought they would have put that in the movie to help show what he had to deal with and who he may have got some of these things from. I feel like the movie didn’t give him as much credit by not showing this, and made him look more of a crazy random guy when these things could have caused the issue. Other then that I think they did a good job and did what they had to do to make the movie good. They have an accurate view about it and helped many people learn about what happened.

  19. Brian Averbuch
    November 7, 2010 at 9:11 pm | #19

    a) The movie “Changling” starring Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich was based on the true story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. These horrific murders were very well portrayed in the Hollywood film. I believe that the rendition was more than Hollywood simply trying to make a buck. The story was very informative and realistic. Although some details were different in the film then the real life story it is still very accurate.
    b) Hollywood often attempts to render horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. In some cases when Hollywood recreates such horrible crimes it can be offensive and often causes controversy. However the film “Changling” is very factual and I believe that the message that the movie sends is a great one that is educational. In the end this film is simply raising awareness and spreading the miraculous story of a strong woman who changed the world forever.
    c) I wouldn’t change anything in the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The film already follows the story line accurately enough and portrays all of the important facts to give viewers an accurate rendition of what actually happened. It touches on the dismay of the LAPD as well as the horrible crimes of the Chicken Coop Murders. I believe that if the events are too accurate it can actually be worse, especially for those who don’t want to be reminded of the terrible events that took place in Wineville.

  20. Marta
    November 8, 2010 at 1:35 pm | #20

    a.) I believe that the movie “Changling” was an accurate rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Even though some of the parts of the true story were eliminated, and some parts added, the true meaning and morality of the occurrence was displayed. This movie really did open up my eyes to the corruption that was seen in the 1920s. It was absolutely shocking to me how helpless a mother can feel when she is the only one that can do anything to find her missing son. It astonished me how much the police did not do their job, how they tried to prove Mrs. Collins insane. I tried to put myself in her shoes. Would I just have admitted to the police and everyone that the impostor boy was my son? Just to escape the scrutiny, pain and abuse that was received? Angelina Jolie also did an amazing job as an actress, seeing how her appearance had changed throughout the movie to symbolize the pain and suffering that she was going through while not giving up and in to the LAPD. I believe that the main point of movies that are based on true stories is to make the viewers think about it after, and see how there are people that are absolutely ignorant and insane in this world, and that, in essence, no one is safe. Even though I am being a pessimist, this movie really opened up my eyes to events that are going on even today, where police corruption leads to the heartache of so many innocent people. Hollywood did an amazing job of making people aware of what was going on in the 1920s, and how some people are absolutely insane and would do anything in their power to thrive.

    b.) Just as I discussed before, I think it is really good that Hollywood takes incentive in making such movies as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murder depiction. It not only makes viewers think about how to make their lives safer, but it also shows that horrific things such as these actually do happen. Recently, the movie “Strangers” was loosely based on a home invasion that ended in the death of 2 daughters and a mother. Meanwhile, the father had to watch in agony. It was absolutely crazy to realize that it can happen to anyone, literally. And what satisfaction to people get from this? Again, I do not trust anyone. Knowing that there are so many sick people out there that would watch others suffer just for their benefit. Movies such as “Changeling” should be more advertised; something to make society aware that it can literally happen to anyone; no one is exempt from the evil ways of an insane person. Movies such as this cause awareness, and I believe that is their main goal. The Wineville Chicken Coop murders are something that changed the lives of countless amount of people, weather their were actually involved, or just read about it in the paper. Hollywood should only progress in making such great movies that will teach our society of the demeaning ways of others.

    c.) “Changeling”, in my opinion, was a perfect depiction of the article that I just read. However, I believe if Louise was portrayed in the movie, it would give a whole new twist to the story of Stewart. Just from watching the movie, we think that Stewart acquired this insane behavior just from being himself. It is important, though, to realize that something in his life must have shaped him to be the way he is. If there was a greater depiction of Stewart’s childhood and Louise’s insanity, people could have understood where this man got his erratic behavior. This is does not satisfy how he acted. From reading the article, it seems as if the whole family was sick and twisted in some way. It makes me angry to see that people could have reported these murders if they all got together, and saved the lives of so many little boys. The movie brought out in me hatred, confusion, sympathy and all mixed emotions at once. So did reading the true story. “Changeling” was a great depiction of the struggle and abuse that a woman has to go through, and how alone one can feel.

  21. Carly Hirschorn
    November 9, 2010 at 3:03 pm | #21

    1.
    The movie “Changling” was based on the true story of the Wineville Chicken Muders in California. Although the film did an excellent job in retelling one of the most bizzare cases in American Justice, many important elements were left out. First, the true life chronicle goes into great depth about serial killer, Gordon Stewart Northcott’s family and life. The chronicle states that Gordon’s mother, Louise played a significant role in the numerous murders at the chicken coop. Also, Gordon’s father and Winnifred (his older sister) knew the horrors of the murders of the little boys. The film also fails to mention that Walter’s father was imprisoned in “true-life’, where in the movie Christine Collins left him when Walter was at a young age. I think this may have been a pro for Christine Collins’ character because it portrayed her as a devoted and hard-working single mother. Also, “Changling” showed that Christine Collins was able to take down the police force based on Code 12 and the resignment of Captain Jones. In true life, Christine’s efforts didn’t do much good for the better good of herself and the community because not much difference was made. Captain Jones retired quietly and Code 12 didn’t result in any severe changes to the police force. Even though some minor details were missing from the film, I think “Changling was a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Gordon Northcott admitted on and off in prison to sexually abusing and murdering over 15 boys over a period of years until he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. It is nearly impossible for a Hollywood film to cover so much information and events that took place throughout this long murder and case. The “Changling” film did an excellent job in portraying the accounts of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders in such a short period of time. There was little room for error, and the blockbuster film was a complete hit.
    2.
    I do believe that it was good practice for Hollywood to make movies about crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders because it allows the public to view and be educated on these types of crime. Personally, I didn’t know what the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders were until I watched the movie “Changling”. Now, I could recall every major event and killing that Gordon Northcott subjected himself too. Although some Hollywood films may be dramatized to a certain extent, it still serves as an educational and learning tool for students and adults alike to become educated with more murder cases. By Hollywood directing and producing these movies, it attracts an appealing eye to the public. Little do they know, they are learning about one of the most bizzare American Justice cases ever, while watching such a surreal and horrific murder movie.
    3.
    The only thing I would change about the movie “Changling” is to incorporate all of Gordon Stewart Northcott’s family members into the film. Louise, his mother, played an important role in the murders of the Winslow Brother and Walter Collins as well. She seemed to be insane because she accused her husband George, for raping and impregnating her daughter. All these accounts were proven false, which lead Louise to being even more insane than originally thought. Also, Sanford, Gordon’s nephew, was sexually abused by Gordon. Something that was never released in the film. A minor detail like this should’ve been incorporated in the film because the film portrayed their relationship to be somewhat normal and non-threatening. Gordon’s father, George, also knew about the murders of the little boys and never muttered a word until the ranch was under investigation and Sanford and Stewart were in custody. I believe that family should’ve been added into the film because only Sanford and Steward’s characters were portrayed in the film. A major factor in the chronicle was Gordon’s family so I think it is significant and appropriate to incorporate these characters into the film.

  22. Michelle Walcker
    November 9, 2010 at 8:34 pm | #22

    A. For the most part, the movie “Changling” is a true rendition of the real Wineville chicken coop murders. There were however, some differences between the two stories. First is that Christine Collins was not a single mom/woman, but rather a married woman whose husband was in jail during her son’s disappearance. This means that Walter Collins knew his father, whereas in the film he didn’t know him at all and Christine was truly a single mom. Another difference is that in real life, the whole Northcott family was involved and/or knew about the murders and crimes committed by Stewart Northcott. They also never called the police on him and Stewart remained in the states. In the film, only Sanford and Stewart were talked about and shown and Stewart had fled back to Canada, where when he met up with his sister, his sister called the police on him. A third difference between the films was about the fake Walter, Arthur. After admitting he wasn’t Walter, in real life he admitted his father abandoned him and was later sent to a boys school in Iowa. In the film after admitting he wasn’t Walter, Arthur was sent back to Illinois with his mother, who picked up at the train station in California. Finally, the last difference was the outcome of the abuse of power the LAPD had done. In real life, even though Christine Collins spoke out about her wrongful imprisonment into the psy. ward, not much was done except that complaints were taken when this power was abused and the chief of police resigned after all the embarassment. In the film, after Christine Collins was released, this situation went to court, where the chief of police was fired from his position and laws were put into effect so that the police had to have a legitimate warrant for someone to be put in the psy. ward.
    B.I believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies out of crimes such as the Wineville chicken coop murders. Even though these are gruesome and tragic stories, they also educate people on the nation’s history of such crimes and could possibly help in solving future bizarre crimes. From this movie people also learned about the city of Mira Loma and why it has the name it has today in California. Before seeing this movie, I personally had no knowledge of any police force abusing their power so badly and believe that this film taught people how authority can abuse power and that people should speak and act out if a situation like this is going on.
    C. If I could change anything in the movie “Changling” I would change two things. The first thing I would add would be Louise Northcott. She was a big part of the murders and in helping her son in holding her grandson. She also was a big part of Stewart Northcott’s trial and in confirming that Walter Collins was dead. It seems that if added in the film, she would make the movie more like the real story and would have added to the bizarre affect of the crimes themselves. The second thing I would change would be that Stewart Northcott admit to Christine Collins that her son was murdered and dead. This fact would be more assuring to the audience about whether Walter Collins really did die or not. Since the Northcotts all admit to the fact that Walter Collins is dead, I believe the film should seem to make it that way as well.

  23. abby
    November 10, 2010 at 12:53 am | #23

    I think that the movie Changeling was fairly accurate. The truths of the actual events were portrayed in the movie. Some events though were left out, but nothing was added. Some differences in the movie and what actually happened range from who committed the crimes to little details. For example, Walter didn’t disappear from his home but from a matinee showing of a movie. Also Walters’s father isn’t mentioned in the movie but in real life he is actually in jail for robbery. Also Sanford’s life situation is different in real life than in the movie. The reason why he lives with Gordon who in reality goes by Stewart lived with his uncle because his single mom couldn’t afford him. Sanford didn’t live a pleasant life on the ranch. He was beaten and sexually abused by his uncle and was unable to leave. Just like in the movie he was forced to help kill the boys. Stewart was also not the only one in his family that was involved with the crimes on the ranch. His mom, Louise was also involved and helped to kill and beat the boys as well as cover up the crimes. Sanford’s sister did realize what was going on when she came to visit and tried several times to help her brother escape but was stopped by Stewart. Also Stewart’s father/Louise’s husband also knew about the crimes and tried to save Sanford but was unsuccessful. As for the fake boy that said he was Walter. He lived with a farmer for a few weeks in Iowa before saying he was Walter Collins, he was brought to CA where Mrs. Collins said it wasn’t her son and the LAPD made her “test” him out. He later admitted that he was not Walter Collins and that he just wanted to come to CA. Christine Collins was put into the psych ward by the police but her release was when the boy admitted who he truly was and her release was silent and not noticed by media. She also had no influence on the corruption of the LAPD which continued into the 90’s. As for the punishments, Stewart was punished to death but not before putting up many crazy acts. Louise was sentenced to life but only served 11 years. Mrs. Collins never gave up looking for Walter.
    I think that it is okay for Hollywood to make movies like this because it informs society of things that actually happened. I feel that Changeling was accurate of the major events in the story that happened. It shows people mistakes that were made in the past such as the corruption of the police. It also shows the crimes that were committed in the past and the outcome of these crimes. It lets people know the history of crimes in the past.
    I would not make any changes to the movie. I think adding the true part of Stewart’s mom and other family being involved would add more confusion to the movie. The movie other that that was accurate except for minor details such as how Walter disappeared. Overall the movie was still accurate to the truth and still had an impact on the viewer.

  24. Chelsea Hofer
    November 10, 2010 at 1:00 am | #24

    A) The true life story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders were similar to the movie “Changling” with some minor details that were left out of the film. I think they did incorporate as much as they could without dragging out the film. They were able to make the viewers see the bizarre and horrible things that went on in that house. Some information that was left out of the movie, “Changling” was how terrible Stewart’s family life was and why he actually became the person he did. His parents also knew what Stewart was doing to these little boys but the movie does not mention anything about that. Comparing the movie to the “true life” chronicle Mrs. Collins was portrayed very similar. The return of Walter to his mother, and the institutionalization of Mrs. Collins were also very accurate of what really took place in Wineville. Although the movie did leave out some important details, I don’t believe Hollywood was just trying to make money. They still did a good, accurate job in portraying the story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.
    B) I think movies based off real life thing helps bring awareness and knowledge of what goes on in the world. If the movie “Changling” never was made, many people would have never knew what horrific crimes happened at the Wineville Chicken Coop and the corruption of the police department during that case. When a movie is based off real life historical events its a better way for people to learn about things they would not have known anything about. It also brings awareness that things like this happen all the time and you should be cautious.
    C) Theres not much I would change about the movie because I do think they did do a good job with the information portrayed in real life. The only thing I would change is Stewart Northcutt’s childhood and how horrible it was especially how he was treated by his mother. A lot of his problems stemmed from his parents not being around and because he didn’t have parental guardians and a strong family he took his anger out on the innocent little boys. I also think that the nephew being abused and raped should be added to the movie.

  25. Mary (Molly) Knight
    November 10, 2010 at 6:52 pm | #25

    A) The movie “Changling” does give us an understanding of what happened in regards to the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders however, it doesn’t give us all the details as the exactly what happened. While it does have some similar parts such as the Collins boy missing, serial killer Gordon Stewart Northcott, and Mrs. Collins being given the wrong kid in place of her own son, the film didn’t tell the story exactly the way that it happened. In the “real” Chicken Coop Murders, there was still a lot of question as to exactly what happened with the young boys and who all was involved with the murders of them. When the trial was taking place, there were several stories from not only Stewart, but his mother, is niece, and most notably, his nephew. The film did show the nephew taking part in some of the violent acts along with his uncle, so in that sense the movie was accurate.
    While the real story talks about the entire situation and focuses a lot on the Northcott family, we see a lot more about the trying time that Mrs. Collins went through to try and find her son during the film. We see the way that the LAPD worked and treated Mrs. Collins. I do think that Hollywood was trying to make a film interesting and to be able to capitalize on it, but I think that they took it in a direction that we were able to get an understanding of a mothers strength and ability not to give up to prove a point all in the hopes of finding her son.
    B) When Hollywood comes out with films such as “Changling” and other films that are based on true stories, I believe that it has its positives and its negatives. I think that it is interesting to learn about something that I might not have known a lot about prior to the movie, but at the same time I have to remember that everything in the film isn’t going to be factual. I think that it is more appropriate for Hollywood to produce a feature film if they are going to stay as close to the “real” story as possible. I also think that it is better when the film either begins or ends with some information about the real story that the viewer has an understanding to what really happened.
    C) If there was one thing that I could change about the “Changling” film, I would add more information about the Northcott family. When reading the article about the Chicken Coop Murders, I found it interesting to learn a little about Stewart’s background and the way that his mother was. I think that this most likely played a lot into the way the Stewart ended up being as an adult. Not that I agree with anything that he did, but I think that I would have looked at the film in a different way. He struggled as a child, not feeling as though he truly fit into his family and his home life was nothing to be proud of. I also think that giving a little more information about Stewart’s niece and nephew would have made the film to be more accurate.

  26. Frederick Lewis Jr.
    November 10, 2010 at 7:59 pm | #26

    A. “True-life” Stories of The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and “Changeling” are close. Changling is just a summary of it I think. True Life is more in depth than Changling. In True Life Stewart’s folks knew about his doings. They don’t say if he’s learned his ways from his parents or not though.. In True Life his mom was described pretty good. The movie is accurate though like the names and things that went down. I don’t think Changling is Hollywood just trying to make a quick buck though. They tell the story pretty good. They leave some little things out but it’s not like you have no idea on what really happened. They just have to make it entertaining while telling the story, which they did.

    B. Yeah Sure. I think that the whole “based on a true story” thing lies a lot of the time, but I think that as long as it’s really based of one then it’s all good. People get to watch and get an idea of some bad things that really happen without being bored. Like documentaries aren’t fun to watch most of the times but when Hollywood does it, it makes it entertaing. Some documentaries are good though. “Based on True Story” movies have a bigger impact on people because they realize that it can happen to them. I think it’s fine in this case. But when I was in High School we had an assignment where we had to take a movie that was based on a true story and contrast it on what really happened. I did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the movie and what really happened are not that similar. In cases like this no, I don’t think hollywood should stretch the truth too much.

    C. I wouldn’t change anything. Yes they leave some things out, but it’s not like the movie leaves you asking questions. You know what you need to know about it by the end of it. It’s a very good representation of what really happened if you ask me.

  27. Christopher Victor
    November 10, 2010 at 8:37 pm | #27

    A. From reading the real story of “The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders” I found that the movie “Changling” is pretty much the real story except for some parts like the LAPD giving Ms. Collins the wrong boy and trying to play it off like it was really hers. Also the movie did not go into any detail about how Stewart ended up at the chicken ranch and that he came from Canada. Also Stewart raped dozens of boys at his ranch and released them but threatened to kill them if they told anyone. Also the movie never talked about Louise, Stewart’s mother, and how she would do anything for Stewart. She also had murdered children to cover up her son’s disease of raping children. In the movie Walter was taken from the house but in the real story he was taken while on his way to the movie theater. Also another part the movie left out was that Walter’s father was put in prison but in the movie they said that he had left the family. I believe that Hollywood tried to expose the story about this horrific town but also tried to add a little kick by giving the mother the wrong son. This doesn’t really turn the story around because most of the information about Stewart is true in that park of the story. I believed Hollywood added this part so it would be like there are two parts going on at once to keep everyone on their toes through out the movie.

    B. Yes I believe that Hollywood should make movies about horrific crimes because it keeps people more aware of crimes like the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I think it will make people more aware in general as well to watch out for stuff like this even though this is in the 1920s its just one more crazy event that has happened that you have to believe has happened and can happen again. This movie is more of an educational experience so that people can take this with them to learn from.

    C. After watching “Changling” and reading The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders” I believe that the movie should have incorporated more of Stewart Northcott’s family’s involvement in the murders, as well as how he ended up in Wineville. These are all key aspects of the story that should have been incorporated into the movie. I’m not sure why Hollywood wouldn’t incorporate these into the movie because they obviously had to do research on the story so why not make it exactly what happened. Also the movie could have showed us how Stewart picked up Walter while he was on his way to the movies. I would have liked if the movie did a recap and showed Stewart picking up Walter like they did the recap of the escape from the chicken coop. The movie could have been more around Walter’s experience rather then Ms. Collins’.

  28. Rich S
    November 10, 2010 at 8:57 pm | #28

    A) “Changeling” as a movie deviated quite a bit from the reality of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, the real life events that the movie was based on. The movie never discussed Gordan Northcott’s mother or delved very far into the man’s personal life. It also never explicitly stated that he molested any children even though that was his main motivation for most of his abductions.
    Clint Eastwood did do a very good job portraying Christine Collins’ struggle against the police and how corrupt the LAPD was in the 20′s.

    B) While I normally despise how much the media sensationalizes tragedy and loss, I actually approve of movies about horrific crimes so long as the movie does a mostly-accurate job. It’s important to learn about how killers or criminals go about doing what they do; Northcott’s method of abducting young boys by having Sanford with him to gain their trust isn’t something a lot of people would know. These things can be informative and beneficial to the public. It’s when the movie exaggerates or stretches the truth that I have an issue of it.

    C) Well the movie was already very long, but I would add in the influence of Northcott’s mother. She is the one who plead guilty to murdering Walter. I would also not leave the viewer with some false hope at the end; no boy was ever discovered who said Walter may be alive. Other than that, I would leave the rest the same. The acting was excellent and the movie was engaging.

  29. Dom M
    November 10, 2010 at 9:45 pm | #29

    a. Changling was definitely a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders, and not just a Hollywood movie to make money. Changling was able to summarize all of the things and events that occurred during the Wineville Chicken Coop murders into a movie just under 2 hours. This was surprising after reading the whole story behind it all and learning about everything else that had occurred and the other people involved but the movie was still able to for the most part accurately depict the Wineville Chicken Coop murders very well. I was very intrigued by this film and at first thought it was just a Hollywood movie to make a “buck” and didn’t truly use the events from the true story because it was such a bizarre movie, but after reading the article, I am extremely impressed and amazed to know the bizarreness that occurred in the movie actually happened in the true story and was even more “screwed up” in the true story, but the film would not have had time to fit it all in; the film would had to have been multiple hours long to include all the crazy events that occurred in the true story. The movie was unable to include characters such as Louise, and Jessie, as well as the other killings and attempted killings that occurred as well as the court trials and the symbolic hanging.
    b. I think it is a very good idea for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes in real life as long as they do not stretch the truth of the actual happenings or distort it to make it a whole new story. This way more of a national audience can be exposed to the horrific crimes that occur, the disgusting a gruesome people that exist in society and ultimately give them a reality check that these things happen and the world is not a perfect place. I would like to see more Hollywood movies depicting true stories on awful and horrific crimes that occur in our society to open peoples’ eyes.
    c. The movie was well made and scripted for the time frame it was filmed in but I would have loved to see this film be hours long to include everything that occurred throughout this story from the additional characters, to more of the court trials, to the attempted escapes by Sanford. Even though it would have been an extremely long movie, it would not have been boring at any point because I was not bored and was on the edge of my seat while reading the true story. It is so interesting and intriguing and would have loved to see Hollywood depict it all in the movie even if it meant the movie had to be four hours long.

  30. Emily Baumann
    November 10, 2010 at 10:06 pm | #30

    (A.)I believe that Changeling portrays many of the facts stated in the real life story about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Though some information was not incorporated into the movie, they put in the main facts that one would need to know to understand what happened. The movie did not discuss Walter’s father: They did not mention that he was actually in jail. They also never went into detail about Northcott’s family, or how he raped several boys and let them go, threatening them as well. They also said Walter was kidnapped from his house when it was actually the movies.In the movie they mainly concentrated on Christine Collins and not as much about the Northcott and what was going on at the chicken coops. They also left out the information about how there were supposedly “sightings” of Walter. Over all though I would say that Changeling put in most of the important facts to tell the story in a time limit.

    (B.) I believe that it is good that Hollywood puts these horrific stories into movies. It makes the public aware of what is going on and really can open the public’s eyes and bring awareness . Before seeing this movie I personally am one who learned about this horrible story though Changeling . It is a good way for one to inform themselves as long as Hollywood does not change the story too much to where it is almost not even the same. If they make the movies as accurate as Changeling, they can become more of a learning experience.

    (C.) The only thing I would suggest to change in this movie is to give a little bit more background information about Stewart Northcott and his family. Other then that I think they portray the necessary facts needed for the amount of time Hollywood has to put into a movie.

  31. Max Ivler
    November 10, 2010 at 10:21 pm | #31

    A) After reading the real story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I would say the movie “Changling” is pretty close to the actual story. It is the goal of Hollywood to make money, therefore the the movie is a little different then the actual case. Hollywood adds a little bit of an entertainment factor to the real events but also leaves some major parts out. The biggest thing that was different about the real case and the movie is that the movie never even mentions Louise. She had such a large role in all of the murders but doesnt make the film.
    B) I believe if done right, it is in good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. If a film maker can do a good job at telling the actual story and keep it as true as possible, i believe it brings awareness to people that may not have know about the events before. If done wrong though, I believe it can be a great unjustice to the victims of the crime. Movies about crime can be very informative to many agegroups of people. They can help bring some positive light to some terrible crimes
    c) If i had to change something about the movie to make it more like the actual story, i would add Louise to “Changling”. She had such a major role in the real crime but fails to make the movie one time. She is never even mentioned. I didnt like how the movie gave you hope that Walter was still alive. In the real story all three say hes dead. I would also focus the movie more on the events that took place in the chicken coops and less on Ms Collins.

  32. jnanette
    November 10, 2010 at 10:48 pm | #32

    A) The movie “Changeling” and the true life chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders are very similar in detail to one another. The movie takes a step back from the hard-core detail of the story perhaps due to time constraints, and delivers a wholesome account of the events without omitting anything vital to the story. Someone who has never read the chronicle but seen the movie would still have an accurate idea of what went on, therefore, I believe it is a valid rendition.

    B) I do support Hollywood’s recreations of “horrific” crimes that are true historical events. It presents another means of education; a most popular means at that. Provided the stories are as accurate as can be, they become opportunity to be aware of events most would otherwise never hear about.

    C) I would not change anything about the movie to better portray the true life chronicle. I think as good a job as can be done, was done. The purpose of the movie was to center the focus around Walter Collins, and that was done well. Any viewer can come away with an accurate account of the story and that is what matters. I wouldn’t expect to remember every little detail even if they added them. Plus the fact that it might deter viewers by making the movie too long, or boring.

  33. Cami Nezam
    November 10, 2010 at 10:59 pm | #33

    a. The movie “Changeling” was based on the “true life” story of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders that took place in Los Angeles, California. I believe that the movie was a good imitation to what really happened in real life, but did fail to mention many important events and details that actually happened. The movie did appear somewhat hollywood to me because of the way the movie portrayed the sequence of events in the movie without giving background details on Northcott’s horrible family lifestyle. The movie never included the involvement of Stewarts mother in the murders of the little boys. She clearly knew what her son was doing to those boys and she was involved in the murder almost as much as her son was, just watching the poor innocent boys being tortured and murdered. The fact that Stewart’s mother was supporting her son’s cruel actions, shows that she has not been the mother that you look up to. Other than events and details missing in the movie, the movie did a great job portraying the poor criminal justice system at the time. It truly showed how corrupt the system was.

    b. I believe that making movies about horrific murder and true crime stories is acceptable because if it weren’t for some movies out there such as Changeling, people would have no idea about stories that actually happened in real life. Movies like this can actually inform people on true life events and make them more aware. I had no idea about the Wineville Chicken Coop story until i watched the movie Changeling. The movie was accurate enough for me to understand what had happened but i feel like future movies based on true life events should not leave out important details and events that have actually occurred in real life.

    c. The thing that jumps out at me to change about the movie is to show more of Northcott’s family background which had a huge impact on why Stewart did the things he did. Also if i were to change the movie i would include Stewarts mother and show how she had some sort of participation in the murders of the innocent boys. Those two changes would have made the movie a completely true rendition of the true life, Wineville Chicken Coop story.

  34. RJ Forsythe
    November 10, 2010 at 11:21 pm | #34

    A) The movie changeling was created to depict and inform viewers of the 1920s Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The actors who were in the movie did an excellent job getting their message to viewers about the events that occurred during this time. The movie “changeling” and the true story about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders both share many similarities but the movie is lacking many key elements that occurred in the REAL chicken coop murders. Although it was lacking some parts and then Hollywood added in some of its own scenes, this film really opened my eyes to the corruption of justice in the 1920s. The story itself was very informative and gave me a very good depiction of the Chicken Coop murders that occurred.

    B) I personally feel that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies of such crimes because we have a right to see and learn about these horrific crimes. I feel that through movies such as changeling, we learn about crimes that we may not have been around to live through or to read about. Also it informs us about cases that already took place and the outcome of those cases. For me, I never had even heard of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders until I viewed this film and after watching it I feel that I am very well informed about an important event that greatly impacted the judicial system around the world.

    C) I honestly would not have changed anything in the film. Perhaps I would have added a few extra scenes and possibly incorporate the fact that telling the audience that Walter was really dead instead of saying that he still hasn’t been found. Overall that would be the only thing I would change. I think that the film portrayed the “true life” story of the Chicken Coop Murders perfectly. Hollywood did a great job informing and depicting the events that occurred in Wineville. They made the movie enjoyable and informing.

  35. Adam Gerstel
    November 10, 2010 at 11:23 pm | #35

    After reading this real life article and story teller on the movie Changeling i believe the two events are pretty identical. The movie is different because it does not discuss the father at all, instead it focuses on Angelina Jolie’s role in the film and her hurt when she loses her son. Someone who has never seen the real story and then goes to see the fill would still have a pretty good understanding of what is going on. The real story seems to be focused more on the murders yet, the hollywood film focuses more on the aspects of the mother coping without her son and the corruption of the LAPD.

    b. I believe it’s a good thing that hollywood makes movies out of real murders because it makes people realize what has gone in the world in the past, and what can go on in the future. Although it is not completely accurate we must realize that it is hollywood and rather than tell the full complete(maybe out times semi-boring story) they would rather ass the “spice” in the fill to make people really want to go see it. When people see that something is based on a true story they immediately become more engaged because they know most if not all of the film happened in real life and they can relate to that.

    c. i think if i could change one thing in the movie it would have to be the fact that it focused too much on the mother’s struggle. i believe if the movie would have foreshadowed more that the boy was alive and well for some amount of time it wouldn’t have made us be so anticipated for her to find him during the film. i felt as if the entire movie i was waiting for a clue or something that he was alive and i never received it. Although i realize this is hollywood i still needed something to give me a reason to stay entertained during the film. I do however like the fact that we find out the boy was a hero at the end of the film.

    -Adam Gerstel

  36. Alisha S
    November 10, 2010 at 11:32 pm | #36

    A. The movie Changling was based off the Wineville Ckicken Coop murders. The movie is not an exact replica of the actual events. Changling is merely a summary of the basic points of the story. The movie completely takes out the aspect of Louise and the rest of the Northcot family believed to be involved in the Wineville murders. I believe hollywood changed the actual story to make it movie friendly. Had they have used every detail and made an exact true story movie, the movie would have been too long and not entertaining enough to keep an audiences attention. Hollywood simply cut out the longer aspects and added some storylines to make the movie entertaining. Although the movie Changling had some closure in the end, with finding one of the boys and having him speak of what went on at the farm, in real life there was no such closure. Most of the stories Northcot spoke of changed everytime he retold it. He was never consistent and neither was the rest of his family. No one ever actually knew what was the truth and what was being made up. B. I bleieve it is good that Hollywood makes movies about real life crimes like the Wineville Chicken Coop murders. Had i have not seen Changling I would have never heard of these murders. Eventhough movies are sometimes fictionalized to make them more entertaining, it is a good way to inform people. Think about how many people watch movies. The only thing I think hollywood should do is be sure to not stray too far from the actual truth. I think it is good to show people what actually happens in real life. C. If I could change one thing about the movie it would be too add more detail. I think an important part of the actual story is how the Northcot family was involved; not just Stewart. I would want the movie to be more like the real events that took place. I think Hollywood left too much detail out. The whole storyling with Stwearts mother knowing everything her son was doing and possibly helping him do it would ass a whole other aspect to the movie.

  37. Alexa Filiberto
    November 10, 2010 at 11:39 pm | #37

    a. Compare the movie “Changling” to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Did you find the movie “Changling” to be a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, or was it simply “Hollywood” trying to make a buck?

    After reading the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I realized that Hollywood did a fair rendition on the tragic story. In the movie, Christine Collins is the main character. The struggles she endures is quite shocking. I do believe that Hollywood could have focused more on the actual murders that took place. During the movie, the audience is kept in suspicion of Northcott. Introducing Northcott and his family situation early on would have made the movie a better example of what actually happened. For example, the fact that Northcott’s mother, Louis fed Walter Collins meals and was a culprit in his murder seems like an important aspect of the story. Hollywood left most aspects of the Northcott family out of the movie. Despite this, I do believe that Hollywood portrayed this story in the best way to get the point across.

    b. Do you believe it’s good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders? Why or Why not?

    Yes, I do believe it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies that portray crimes such as this one. It not only is a history lesson, but it is also a life lesson to many people. People need to be aware of the horrific crimes that happen so they can protect themselves. If gruesome crimes were kept secret, people would be oblivious to potential dangers. This movie allows parents to recognize that they need to protect their children at all times. I believe if Hollywood did not create movies such as this one, then people would have no idea of how horrific murderers can be.

    c. If you could change anything about the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, what would you change in the movie? Why? If you wouldn’t change anything in the movie, support your view as well.

    The only thing I would change in this movie is the fact that Hollywood did not include an in depth story about the Northcotts. I believe that it would be interesting to learn where exactly Gordon’s motives came from. For example, most serial killers grow up in a poor atmosphere. Knowing this helps people better identify as to why serial killers act the way they do. I also think it would have been a good idea to show more in depth what happened at the ranch. This would enable the audience to connect better with the victims.

  38. Kelicy Dennison
    November 10, 2010 at 11:47 pm | #38

    A. The movie the “Changling” was a pretty close depiction of the true life story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The fact that the LAPD of that time was corrupt was accurately depicted. The fact that the LAPD tried to pass off another child as Walter Collins just so they could be seen as the “heroes” in the eyes of the public was accurately depicted. The fact that because Christine Collins spoke against what the LAPD was telling her she was involuntarily admitted into the psych ward under a “Code 12″ violations. The only main difference between the movie and the real life case was that there weren’t really any repercussions the LAPD had to suffer through. The police chief in charge quietly retired without any disdain to his name. Further corruption was seen throughout this time period and continued into the 5o’s and so on. There were definitely some smaller changes as well. If I remember correctly, I thought that the Winslow boys were the ones that were suppose to have attempted to escape with Walter. Another change that is slightly major is that the truelife story seemed pretty adamant that Walter Collins was murdered, although they were never sure by whom. However, Christine Collins never gave up in the movie or in real life. The movie didn’t really shed light on the background of Steward Northcott or that of his newphew.

    B. I believe it is good for Hollywood to adapt such real life occurrences such as this one to shed light to the things that go on in the world. I wouldn’t have known anything about these horrific kidnappings, rapes, or murders if it hadn’t been for the movie “Changling”. It is important for people to know about such things so that we know how to deal with something, if it is ever to come up again. Also, it shed light on the police corruption that was present throughout the 20th century. Things like that still happen today. It may not be as bad as it was back then. I’m pretty sure the police can’t just throw you into a psych ward under for not agreeing with whatever they say, but there are corrupted areas in the police force. Thanks to this depiction were not completely blind about how to handle the situation.

    C. The one thing that I would probably change about the movie “Changling” would be to add in some of the background information that we didn’t get to see. For instance, I don’t think the movie really mentioned anything about the whereabouts of Mr. Collins. Also, it didn’t really give reason for not taking Chritine’s son’s disappearance seriously. The true life story has a theory that the police may have thought that Walter had been taken by some bad people that Christine Collins had gotten involved in to get her husband released from jail. Other background information that would have been helpful would be the childhood and other offenses made by Steward Northcott. The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders were not the first offenses he had against him, and if someone would have stood up against him, he might have been put away for good and the lives of those boys could have been spared.

  39. Joe Beaudoin
    November 11, 2010 at 12:04 am | #39

    The Move “Changling” has many similarities but also have some differences to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Hollywood definitely left its mark on this movie. The director never included Louise into the movie. In real life, she actually lived on the ranch with Sanford and Stewart. She was also put on trial for the murder of Walter. In the movie, the little boy never really admitted that he was not Walter as he did in real life. The movie also did not mention how a police officer in Illinois made the boy believe that he was Walter. The movie also said that the father had ran off because he could not handle responsibilities while in fact the father was in jail and his wife had fought for his release. In the movie, Christine seemed as if she had moved on from their relationship and was living in a nice house working a decent job when she was actually not.

    The end of the article stated that there were no drastic changes made to the police force. In the movie, the captain was demoted and the detective was fired. There were also major changes between the movies reenactment of the meeting of Mrs. Collins and Stewart. This is mainly because the movie never mentioned the killer’s parents. Hollywood had the jest of how the story happened but the added little details to make it more likable by the public.
    I believe that Hollywood should make movies about any real life cries and horrif
    ic events. I feel this way because these movies help the public learn about the event. If it was not for this movie, I would have never heard of the murders in Wineville. I feel that if Hollywood is going to make these movies, they need to depict what actually happened. Since this is how I learned about the murders, I believed all of it to be facts when most were actually falsifications. This hurts the integrity of the director as well as movies in general.

    If I were to the movie to make it similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I would make it more realistic. Instead of focusing on the corruption in the movie, I would focus on the story of Sanford, Stewart and their family after they admit to the murders. I would do this in order to portray the truth to the public especially for people that have never heard the story before. There is a major underlying story of how messed up some families can be and it would be informative to the public.

  40. Kaitlyn Ostroski
    November 11, 2010 at 12:17 am | #40

    I feel the movie did a good job of summarizing what happened. A lot of the background information and side stories were left out of the movie, but overall the general accounts of what happened where present. Little things-such as Walter actually being abducted on his way to the movies instead of from his home, or that Walter’s dad had not actually left them, but was in prison- stuck out to me as I began to read the actual account of what happened. If the movie had included all of the background information about Stewart and the Northcott family, it would have turned into more of a documentary and been very long. In that sense, I do feel the movie was a Hollywood version of what happened.
    Personally I think it is a good idea to make movies based on true stories, even if they are based off of horrible crimes such as these. If a movie had not been based on the Wineville Chicken Coop murders, I would not have learned about it. I think that movies can be a great way to educate people about things that have happened in history whether it is good or bad. And yes, this movie does have some horrific crime in it, but it also shows crimes that are more common still today such as police corruption. This movie is a perfect example of corruption and i feel it should be shown in criminology classes such as this.
    I honestly would not change anything about this movie. I think it tells the story well and highlights the main points about the status of the LAPD at that time and what happened to Christine and Walter Collins. There is a lot of other information involving the Northcott family that was absent from the movie, but if that was included I think the movie would have turned out extremely different. I’m sure a more accurate movie could be made that tells the story of the Chicken Coop murders from the perspective of a member of the Northcott family, but since this movie was called “Changling”, it is appropriate that the storyline revolved around Walter Collins and the LAPD police corruption at the time.

  41. Leslie R
    November 11, 2010 at 12:27 am | #41

    A) The movie “Changling” and the actual depiction of what happened in the chicken coop murders were very much the same and the movie was very close to the true story and what actually happened. The actual story has a lot more facts than were depicted in the movie, but all the general events were portrayed correctly. In the true story the family of Mr. Northcott was involved a lot more than in the movie, they were involved with the murders and all seemed to be crazy. The real story also tells about the different escapes that were tried for the nephew Standford Clark. Gordan Northcutt’s mom helped with the murders because of how her son loved her so much. In the movie you did not know much about the boy that pretended to be Walter Collins, but in the true story there is a lot more information about him. A similarity between the movie and the true story was how corrupt the police were at the time and how they had the power to basically do anything they wanted, like throwing Ms. Collins into a mental institution simply because of a “code 12″ just because she knew the boy was not her son. The movie and the actual story both exemplified how Mr. Northcott would always change his story about who he killed or how many people he actually killed. One of the major differences between the movie and the actual story was that in real life the LAPD did not suffer any real punishments due to this. The police chief quietly retired without anything happening to him and in the movie he was removed from his position. I do believe that the movie did a very good job of portraying the actual true events of the story and it correctly identified what took place in real life.
    B) I do believe it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies that depict crimes such as this one. I feel that without movies like these several people would never know what goes on in the world as far as dangerous and horrific crimes such as this and also the police corruption. It is a true history lesson and life lesson that people should use for future protection. I do not believe crimes like this should be kept from the public because without true stories of crime depicted through movies most people would not know the actual severity or how an actual crime happened. This movie allows parents to be aware that they need to protect their children at all times. I believe if Hollywood did not create movies such as this one, then people would have no idea of how gruesome murderers can be and most people would never even know that this crime had taken place.
    C) There is not much that I would want to change about the movie because I felt that it depicted the true story very well and the main events were all portrayed correctly. Adding too many little details I feel would not do much to the movie because many people watching a movie would not catch all the little details anyway. One thing I might change about the movie would have to be adding some information on the background of Mr. Northcutt and his family. I feel like since they were involved in the murders a little more could have been added to the movie in order to depict this part of the true story.

  42. Pete Cecora
    November 11, 2010 at 12:52 am | #42

    A) The movie “Changeling” and the “true-life” story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders were very much similar to one another. Many of the accounts that happened in the movie were true, from the corruption of the L.A. police department to the little boy faking his identity to be Walter Collins to escape from his stepmother. The movie “Changeling” did leave out a lot of information about Stewart Northcott and his family. I believe the movie should’ve motioned how Stewart and Sanford were living with Stewart’s parents, Louise and George, on that farm because that was a very big part case. Louise Northcott wasn’t motioned once in the film, meanwhile she was the person who murdered Walter Collins. I would have wanted the film to also talk more about Walter’s father because he was only brought up once in the film. But overall, this movie wasn’t just “Hollywood” trying to make a buck but a true account of a serial killer.

    B) I believe it is a good practice for Hollywood to make such movies as this one as all as the story is accurate to the “real life” account. I think it is a good practice because it is important for people to learn about what kind of criminals are out there. If it wasn’t for “Changeling” I don’t believe I would have ever heard the story about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The most beneficial things about Hollywood making a movie about true to life events is that nowadays people would rather watch a movie than sit down a book due to our fast pace life’s.

    C) After I read the “true-life” story, I think the movie could go into more details about many things. One major aspect that wasn’t talked about was the multiple times Sanford tries to run away from the ranch with the help of George and his sister. Another aspect that should be in more detail is of the serial killer, Stewart Northcott. Stewart Northcott should have been provided as more of a monster. He was raping his nephew at least twice a week, and murdering and sexually assaulting all these little kids. Another person that should have made the movie was Stewart’s mother, Louise. She was the person, I believe, was responsible for all of the deaths. She dressed Stewart up as a little girl until he was 10 years old. She supported him in murdering these innocent kids, and took part in some of them as well. In Sanford’s case, he said that Louise was the person who decided that all three of them would axe Walter Collins once to kill him.

  43. Brianna Volkmer
    November 11, 2010 at 1:52 am | #43

    A) As with any movie that is based on real events some events will be missing. I feel even though some parts of the real Wineville Chicken Coop Murders are missing the movie is still a good true rendition. I feel as though even with parts left our people were able to get a great depiction of how the crimes happened. Although Hollywood definitely made money off of this movie, I don’t feel this movie was an attempt to make “quick buck.” I feel that director Clink Eastwood had an interest in these crimes and wanted to share this interest with others. I feel like he definitely did his research and chose what to put in the movie and what not to with much thought. The things that he did leave out were not a big enough impact to make the movie too far from the actual truth.

    B)I feel that it is a good thing for movies to be made on real life events such as crimes and murders. Many people are not aware of crimes that have happened such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I think movies like this inform people of real events that have happened in the past. I had never heard of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders until watching this movie. I think that movies like this that are accurately portrayed are informative and entertaining. This movie for example informs people of things such as police corruption. This allows people to not only be educated about historic events but also lets them be aware of things that still happen like police corruption.

    C)I don’t know if I would change anything about this movie. I feel like if a few more details were added (such as more information about the Northcotts) viewers would know things such as background information. But I feel like this movie was a good portrayal of the crimes and was also interesting. I think adding too many details could have made it a little too long and could of had the risk of making it seem too much like a documentary. I think the movie was entertaining and informative and I honestly don’t think I would change anything.

  44. Christopher B
    November 11, 2010 at 2:03 am | #44

    A. Clint Eastwood’s 2008 “Changeling” chronicles the events surrounding the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders of the 1920′s in California. This wasn’t just Hollywood trying to cash in on a tragic story. The majority of the events depicted in the film are true to life and historically accurate. Though it does omit certain details, it does not alter any of the facts.

    B. Honestly, I think it’s great practice for Hollywood to make these kinds of movies. Provided of course that they are at least somewhat historically accurate. This is an example of one such movie, 2003′s “Monster” is a another great example of docudrama cinema. These movies have omitted certain facts, (Monster changes the name of Aileen Wuornos’ partner from Tyria Moore to Selby Ward. Possibly due to personal objections from Moore.) But they never completely altered history in their stories.

    C. If I were to change anything about “Changeling,” I would add the idea that Gordan Northcott might not have been the only killer. It has since been revealed that Sanford Clark testified that he, Gordon Northcott, and Sarah Northcott all “took turns” beating Walter Collins to death. It is said this was done so that nobody out of the 3 of them could go to the police and accuse the other 2 without incriminating themselves as well. I would explore this a little more as opposed to having Gordon being the only murderer.

  45. Alex Pilla
    November 11, 2010 at 2:29 am | #45

    A.) The film “Changeling” and the actual story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders are similar and different in many ways. In the story Walter was said to disappear on his way to a night time movie, while in the film he disappeared due to his mother leaving him home alone while she went to work. Louise, Stewarts “Mother”, was never mentioned in the film, while the whole story was based around Stewart and his family members. In the film we were never really told detials of how Walter was killed and in the story they give more details. In the story it mentions about 4 times of Sanford trying to escape and getting help from his sister but in the film this never is shown. It was believed that when Stewart was a young boy his parents dressed him as a girl and this is why people think he was same-sex oriented. In the film the “fake” Walter never told why he lied to be the real Walter and in the story he told the real reason why. Christine Collins was not removed from the insane hospital quietly in the movie as she was said to be in the story. She also did not throw the missing Walter a 10th birthday party in the film like she did in the story. In the story, it is spoken of Stewart being questioned a lot and him making up all of these stories, and in the film it did not show much of this at all. Captain Jones did not retire “quietly” from his position in the movie as he did in the story- he was removed from his position by the judge during one of the trials. In the film Stewart did not have a follower named “Cyclone Evangelist”. Stewart never admitted to Collins in their jail talk that he killed her son; in the story he admitted it to her. Stewart never tried to commit suicide in the film while he did in the story. Also Collins attorney did not commit suicide in the film as he did in the story. In the end of the film it shows Christine Collins walking off by herself; in the story it says that she remarries.
    B.) I think it is a very good idea for Hollywood to make these types of movies to educated the public on how things really are. They do need to make sure that the facts match up with the real story and that they are not adding in events that really did not take place. I had never heard about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders before seeing this movie and my thoughts about it would have been a lot different if someone told the story to me by mouth rather than me actually seeing what really happened.
    C.) The one thing that really stuck out to me in the movie was when Captain Jones was removed from his position and the police force was told they screwed up. I think this really showed how horrible and corrupt the LAPD was and how humiliating it was for all of them to see their captain being “fired”. A couple things I liked portrayed in the movie but not in the real story were how the movie did not really talk about Stewarts family. While reading the story it was confusing for me to follow all of the names and who was who. I think if the family had been in the film it would have taken away from Christine Collins search for her son and the corruption of the LAPD. Another thing i liked in the movie is how Collins was removed from the insane hospital. While I was watching the film I wanted to slap the doctor in the face and be like “HA IN YOUR FACE! YOU WERE WRONG THE WHOLE TIME!” In the story it says that she was quietly removed while in the movie they made in such a big deal with the priest and his followers coming in and yelling at the nurses and doctors while Collins was strapped to a table about to be shocked.

  46. Allie Brunswick
    November 11, 2010 at 2:53 am | #46

    (a) The movie “Changling” is based on a true story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and the heartbreaking kidnapping of Walter Collins. As always, movies aren’t as accurate as the real deal. Christine Collins, mother of Walter, is given “her son” back after the disappearance. The cops are so corrupted that they literally gave her a different boy. They made her think she was insane and put her in a mental hospital. Some differences were Stewarts family life background. In addition, they didn’t discuss Walter’s father. Another important difference is where the kidnapping took place. In reality, he was kidnapped from the movies, and in the movie was taken from his home. Even though there are various difference in the movie, I feel like the movie did an excellent job portraying a true redemption of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders.
    (b) In many cases I believe it is very important to make reality into movies. I think that people need to be aware of these crazy events that take place because not everyone finds out about it through the news or don’t look into it. Watching a movie really gives you a good eye for what happened even if they aren’t exactly the same. When I first saw the movie it gave me a good preview for the real article. All in all, Hollywood really gave it there all in trying to give us a feel for what really occurred in the Wineville Chicken Coop murders.
    (c) If I could change anything in the movie, I would have added more detail. On the other hand not adding more detail keeps the viewer wondering and getting them more involved into the case especially due to the length of the movie. Also I feel as though Stewarts family should have been involved since it was such a big part of the case. Overall, this movie was a huge hit and definitely kept my attention!

  47. Craig Diana
    November 11, 2010 at 3:42 am | #47

    The movie “Changling” directed by clint Eastwood shows the powerless of women, political corruption, and the use of violence and kidnapping in an attempt to show the Wineville Chicken Coop murders of 1928 in a town near Los Angeles. Compared to the “true life” stories of the actual murders, the movie exemplified the plot well but left out some important aspects of what really happened. The movie focuses on Christine Collins and her efforts of hope to try and get her missing son, Walter Collins back. It briefly mentions and brings up some of the other murders but unlike the real stories behind the changeling, it fails to talk about all five of the murders. The movie also doesn’t describe what things were like between Sanford and his uncle Stewart. He would rape and assault him, make him do chores, and abussively beat him. The movie does not mention at all Jesse, Sanford’s sister who had her own involvement in the murders. Jesse came to visit and noticed how hard Sanford was being put to work and he insisted he was staying in school. Sanford would tell Jesse of all the horrible things that were going on at the ranch. Also the movie fails to mention Stewarts mom Louise, who was also involved in the killing of Walter Collins. Although the movie left out some important details, I don’t believe Hollywood was trying to make a quick buck. The movie was well done and from watching it, you got a sense of the “true life” Wineville Chicken Coop murders.
    I believe it is indeed good for Hollywood to make horrific films such as the Wineville Chicken Coop murders. This is because people will watch the movie and learn and actually know that there was such a thing like this that did indeed happen. It brings problems that are portrayed in the movie, such as political corruption to people’s attention. There are many movies based on true events that portrays problems in the world while also showing you the harmful effects these problems can have on people. For example in “Changeling”, one of the problems portrayed is how women were powerless back then and the corruption of the police force. Because of the disempowerment of women, when Christine Collins told police that the boy was not her son, she was sent to a mental hospital. And because of the corruption in the police force and the unwanteness of bad criticism, the police brought a random kid to pretend to be the son of Christine so they wouldn’t be criticized for not working on the case better. Sometimes the best way to show the flaws of the world is through horrific films so people respond and do something about it to prevent it from happening again.
    I really don’t think I would change how the movie was written because it has nominations in three Academy Awards. It was very well done and got most of the events of the real Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I liked how the movie was based on the struggles of Christine Collins trying to find her son because i feel it got the audience more attatched to the movie. The people watching the movie feel what she was going through because it focuses mostly on Christine. However I think if anything could be added, Clint eastwood should have showed the relationship between Stewart and Sanford. To me your own uncle raping and assaulting you is “mind boggling.” It would have showed how physcotic he really was. Other than that though, I thought the movie had a good plot and layout and wouldn’t change it at all.

  48. Gabby C.
    November 11, 2010 at 3:51 am | #48

    a.)The movie “Changling” demonstrates the true life case of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders and the abduction of Walter Collins. Although the movie does a good job at portraying the story and creating an emotional reaction, not all aspects of the case are made known. The movie fails to explain that not only Stewart Northcott was held responsible for the raping and murder of various young boys, but his family was also aware of the horrible crimes being committed and quite possibly taking part in them as well. Although we know that Stewart Northcott was not in his right mind, it was never mentioned in the movie that his family life was nothing close to normal, considering the fact that he was dressed up and treated as a girl for a period of time during his childhood. Before the chicken coop murders occurred, Stewart Northcott had previously been sentenced to jail for inappropriate behavior towards a friend’s brother. In mourning the loss of this boy, Northcott would play the boy’s favorite song on the piano, sitting on a stool the child had built. This song was played repeatedly while Stewart awaited his execution. The movie also does not state exactly how Walter Collins was murdered; the story states that he was stabbed repeatedly with an axe while asleep in the coop, not only by Stewart, but by other members of the family as well. During Stewart Northcott’s trial, his mother Louise attempted to take the blame for all of the murders committed, landing her a life sentence in jail. She later went on to claim that she was sick with the flu and not in the right state of mind when she made that statement.

    b.) I do believe that it is a good idea for Hollywood to create movies based off of horrific crimes such as this one. Before I watched this movie I was never aware that the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders ever existed. In creating movies such as this one, an awareness and knowledge is also being instilled that may never have occurred without the chance to view movies like “Changling”.

    c.)If i could change anything in the movie I would have done my best to add as much detail possible. I would want to make the movie as accurate to the actual case as I possibly could. Extra details can never hurt, it would have added more of an effect to see that Stewart played a child’s favorite song over and over before he was executed, or to know that his family also took part and were aware of this disgusting case. For the most part though, I can’t complain. I love movies that can draw an emotional reaction, and this one fell nothing short of that. At certain times I felt as though I was in the movie, and almost had to bite my tongue at yelling about certain scenes. Not only was it a movie that I enjoyed, but it was a movie that informed me of a case I never even knew existed.

  49. Jenna Corey
    November 11, 2010 at 8:15 am | #49

    A) The movie “Changeling” was a great interpretation of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, focusing on some of the main aspects of the story involving Walter Collins. Although the Chicken Coop Murders involved several incidents of sexual assault and abuse of young boys, the movie was able to give insight of the overall idea, focusing on one incident. After reading the story I found it very complex, which would make it difficult to include all of the cases in one movie. It left out the details about Stewart Northcott’s family details which do contribute a lot to the story. Focusing on Christine Collin’s situation made the movie more surreal and easier to relate to. If the other cases where included in the movie it would have been harder to connect to the case.
    B) I believe it was a good idea to make the movie “Changeling” because it allowed viewers to get an idea about the Chicken Coup Murders and the corruption that was going on during the 20th century. Although it may have not gave a detailed description of the story and every detail, it played out the murder and case of Walter Collins which gave viewers a case to which they could grasp. The way that Hollywood depicted the case was great. They used details and specifics to give insight on the Chicken Coup Murders without boring the viewers. Even though Northcott’s tactics were more complex and played out in real life, he showed viewers a shocking idea of the story in the movie.
    C) If I could change anything about the movie “Changeling” to make it movie similar to the actual real event of the Chicken Coup Murders I would include the history of Stweart Norcott himself. After reading some of th detailed about Northcott’s past its really gave me a better insight as to what may have caused him to commit some crimes. It definitely changes the perspective of the story and if his childhood was included in the movie i believe it would have definitely benefited. Also I think including the details of the little boy that who he was caught with whom he mourn for the rest of his life was very important. The idea that he had a song played at his execution because of him showed that he really had some issues and that it would bring him to his death.

  50. Kaitlin Geraigiri
    November 11, 2010 at 10:00 am | #50

    a) The movie “Changling” is based on the story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The movie was similar to the “true story” but there are quite a few differences. The movie never discusses the family background of Stewart or that his mother was living with him. According to the true story, Walter Collins was kidnapped while he was on his way to a movie but the movie shows that he is abducted while at home. The movie makes it seem like Walter’s father ran out on his mother when he found out she was pregnant but in reality, he was in prison. The movie also did not discuss how Sanford released multiple boys after raping them and threatened to hurt them if they ever told what happened. Although the movie was not completely accurate, I believe that it was a great portrayal of the story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.
    b) I believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as this one. It is important for people in our society to be aware that events like this have happened both because of the history and the awareness that these things can happen. Although the movies are not always the most accurate representations of the story, it is usually very similar and most people will not ever hear about crimes like this one without big Hollywood movies like “Changling.”
    c) If I could change anything in the movie, I would only change a few things. I would have shown that Northcott’s mother was present for all of this and that there was possibly more than one person who killed some of the boys. The “true life” story of the murders says that, during the murder of Walter Collins, three people took part in beating him to death so that they did not know who actually killed him. The only other thing I would have changed was the mention of Walter’s father and where he actually was. Although some people might say that it would be a good idea to change the ending so that the viewer knew that Walter was dead, I believe that in the interest of film making, it is good that they left the viewer with a little bit of hope for Christine Collins, even if it not completely accurate.

  51. November 11, 2010 at 10:00 am | #51

    A) After reading this article i think that the movie, “Changling” did a really good job interpreting what actually happened in the Wineville Chicken Coop murders. Its hard to pin point it straight on and obviously there are going to be some differences but for the most part the director did a good job. One important aspect that is not in the movie is not one was Stewart Northcott held responsible for the murders but also his family was aware of these horrific murders and might have been taking part in it as well. Also in the “true life” chronicles they go more in depth with Stewarts life and background and history where as in the Hollywood film it is more focused on Collins emotions and her dissatisfaction with the corrupt police department. Also there were a lot of small differences like in the movie they say that her husband had left her but in the “true-life” chronicles it says that he was in jail. Overall i think the movie did a good job capturing the story of Wineville Chicken Coop murders and Hollywood did a good job of getting there story across.

    B) As time goes on more and more hollywood studios are making movies about horrific stories that have happened in the past. I personally think its a good thing. For one thing it very informative when it comes to learning about what happened in the past. Before i watched this movie i had never even heard of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders so if they can continue to teach through there films, i definitely think its a good idea to keep making them.

    C)If i can change anything about “Changling” it would be to get more of the facts straight from the actual Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. For the most part it definitely did a good job at telling the story but it can never hurt putting in more details. They shouldve included that Northcotts family was aware of it and that couldve been a good scene in the movie.

  52. ARS
    November 11, 2010 at 10:06 am | #52

    (a) After watching “Changling” in class and reading the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I did not find “Changling” to be a true rendition of the murders however I think it was close. After reading the article about the real life crimes, I noticed that many major details regarding the family’s involvement in the murders were left out. I felt like in that sense the movie was not an accurate portrayal of the crimes. Gordon’s mother, father and Jessie all played a large role in committing the crimes, although all of their confessions varied, and covering the crimes up. I feel like that was such an important part of the murders and investigation and it really was not one of those details that you should leave out. I think providing more of a background for Gordon Stewart’s childhood and life experiences would have given more of an explanation as to why he did what he did. Not that it would make any of his crimes right but it would have provided more of an insight and the article really cleared that up for me. In the sense of being a “true rendition” of the crimes, I think the part that really made it real for me and many viewers was Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Christine Collins. When she was grieving over her missing son, being committed to the psychiatric ward and fighting for justice, I feel like in some ways I felt every single emotion that she was and I did not look at her so much as an actress but rather the real Christine Collins. I do not think it was Hollywood’s intention with “Changling” to just make a buck but obviously it was a very successful movie for them.

    (b)I think that is acceptable or good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders if they are an accurate portrayal of each of the criminals and the crimes. For me, I think “Changling” gave me an insight to a crime spree that I otherwise wouldn’t have known about. However, I think if with a movie, Hollywood’s only intention is just to make money and not truly portray the crime then it is not good practice. In some cases, I think Hollywood making a movie about real life crimes, can take away from what really happen and make it seem as though it is just a movie, not something that really happened that really affected real people. For families of the victims, I feel as though it could feel as though they are being disrespected at the cost of Hollywood making a buck.

    (c) If I was to change anything about the movie “Changling”, I think that I would add more about the Northcutt family’s involvement in the crime spree. By doing this, I think the directors of the movie would have added more of a sense of realism to the movie. I think everything else in the movie was as far as I could see, an accurate portrayal of the real life crimes. I thought the way in which the LAPD was being corrupted was a very accurate portrayal of the way in which they carried everything out. I think developing Gordon Stewart Northcutt would have been pertinent to the film and therefore needed to be added. I think showing the development of the real life man and the influence that his childhood and family had on why he chose to do what he did would have been important to be in the movie. I think that doing this in flashback form would have been able to explain a lot as far as Gordon went.

  53. Connor
    November 11, 2010 at 10:14 am | #53

    A) The story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders is a gruesome one. The thought of somebody actually doing these things to anyone is hard to fathom, but to children it sickening. Clearly Gordon Northcott had some sort of mental illness to be able to commit these heinous crimes. This is where I find the most obvious difference between the movie “Changeling” and the real story. In the movie Northcott did seem as if he was a little crazy but looking at the actual report it was clear that this man was severely ill. In class we discussed how he would molest his child victims but I never would have guessed that he would have molested his own nephew. As the report states, Northcott regularly raped and beat his nephew whereas in the movie the nephew’s testimony didn’t even hint at the nephew being beaten, just the boys. Also there were many more victims than just the boys kept in the coop. The movie focused more on the corruption of the police officers. All in all I think the movie did a decent job of telling the story. It’s hard to fit two outrageous stories into one movie. “Changeling” focused more on the corruption aspect of the story not so much the crime itself.
    B) I believe that to a certain extent it is acceptable to portray crimes in movies. To me, the average viewer, “Changeling” seemed to stay more on the conservative side when telling about the murders. And this I understand. There are viewers out there that would be horrified if they portrayed or simulated the murder of a child. I believe that this is why when “showing” the murder it was highly obstructed and all you could see was the axe go up and down; highly suggestive without showing the child. I do believe that if not careful, Hollywood can go overboard. Out of respect for victims, families of victims, and the general viewing public directors and producers need to take into account the gruesomeness, or “accurateness,” of the crimes.
    C) I think telling more of the story of the Northcott Ranch would greatly strengthen the plot. The corruption of the police infuriates the viewers but if we had seen more of the ranch and what was going on earlier in the movie, the suspense and frustration would build. In my opinion this would send a greater message about how the police forces have changed or not changed (New Orleans PD) over the years.

  54. Alberto O.
    November 11, 2010 at 10:38 am | #54

    After seeing the movie and now reading what actually happened, I can see where the similarities and differences between the real event and the movie are. The movie did a good job of telling the story but they left out some key facts such as the situation with Northcott and his nephew. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing seeing as this was a movie and nobody wants to see, on top of what was already happening, what Northcott was doing to his nephew. Although Hollywood left out some information it did not change the storyline of the movie nor did it change the real event.
    I believe that it is a good practice that Hollywood make movies about such horrific crimes. The action of making movies about crimes opens up the eyes to the public that crime indeed happens and that some individuals are capable of these sick and heinous crimes. They may seem like normal individuals at first but some could be seriously mentally ill and are able to perform and actually plot out these crimes. Hollywood has put out there the hope that these crimes can be prevented and also if these crimes have been committed they can easily be found.
    If I had the ability to change this movie I don’t think I would since they did a great job. I have never seen this movie before and from the opening scene I was hooked. Yes they focused more on the corruption of the police department but I believe that is what set this movie up for greatness. The changing of the son to a different because they did not want to seen as failures for not being able to find the real boy and then someone digging deeper into the situation is what hooked me. This movie was a good one in my opinion.

  55. Brad Saulson
    November 11, 2010 at 10:55 am | #55

    A. Compare the movie “Changling” to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Did you find the movie “Changling” to be a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, or was it simply “Hollywood” trying to make a buck?
    a.) The movie “ Changling” is not a true rendition of what occurred during the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. This is usually the case when Hollywood directors want to make a film based on a real event. They can’t always make it one hundred percent true, because they also have to be ethical and consider what is appropriate in today’s time. Although, they also have to consider that if they are trying to recreate or retell a story that the information has to be factual. Some of the differences that I found was the plot and order of events. In the real story Walter disappeared on his way to a movie, but in the movie it was said that his mother left him at home. This is just one difference between the two stories. Sometimes it is hard for writers to exactly recreate a movie based on real events, but sometimes following key information is critical.
    B. Do you believe it’s good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders? Why or Why not?
    b.) Yes, I think it is a good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes, as long as they don’t leave out key evidence that or facts that will greatly change the story. I think that it is good for the general population to learn about past events through film. It will help them retain the information better and also be able to relate to it in some way. It is key that they don’t change the plot immensely, and that if them make any changes to the real story, then at the end of the movie they should make it know.
    C. If you could change anything about the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, what would you change in the movie? Why? If you wouldn’t change anything in the movie, support your view as well.
    c.) If I could change anything, I would start with how Walter disappeared. That was a key element in the movie, and I think it is important to follow the original plotline while recreating a film. In order for the film to hold validity the film must categorize key events and portray them correctly. This is critical in making a movie about a real event that did occur without making a joke out of it, or changing the importance of the event.

  56. Saulson
    November 11, 2010 at 10:56 am | #56

    A. Compare the movie “Changling” to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Did you find the movie “Changling” to be a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, or was it simply “Hollywood” trying to make a buck?
    a.) The movie “ Changling” is not a true rendition of what occurred during the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. This is usually the case when Hollywood directors want to make a film based on a real event. They can’t always make it one hundred percent true, because they also have to be ethical and consider what is appropriate in today’s time. Although, they also have to consider that if they are trying to recreate or retell a story that the information has to be factual. Some of the differences that I found was the plot and order of events. In the real story Walter disappeared on his way to a movie, but in the movie it was said that his mother left him at home. This is just one difference between the two stories. Sometimes it is hard for writers to exactly recreate a movie based on real events, but sometimes following key information is critical.
    B. Do you believe it’s good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders? Why or Why not?
    b.) Yes, I think it is a good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes, as long as they don’t leave out key evidence that or facts that will greatly change the story. I think that it is good for the general population to learn about past events through film. It will help them retain the information better and also be able to relate to it in some way. It is key that they don’t change the plot immensely, and that if them make any changes to the real story, then at the end of the movie they should make it know.
    C. If you could change anything about the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, what would you change in the movie? Why? If you wouldn’t change anything in the movie, support your view as well.
    c.) If I could change anything, I would start with how Walter disappeared. That was a key element in the movie, and I think it is important to follow the original plotline while recreating a film. In order for the film to hold validity the film must categorize key events and portray them correctly. This is critical in making a movie about a real event that did occur without making a joke out of it, or changing the importance of the event.

  57. Brooke Maute
    November 11, 2010 at 12:46 pm | #57

    a) The movie “Changling” did an average job of relating the movie to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. There were several major points that the movie did include, while others were left out. The movie focuses mainly on just the Christine/Walter Collins case and not as much the other cases involved in the incident. Hollywood describes the disappearance of Walter occurring when he is left home by his mother, when in real life Walter disappeared on his way to a movie. It is also not mentioned in the movie that Louise, Stewart Northcott’s mother, was involved in the case. Also, the “true life” chronicle mentions that Louise was aware of Stewart’s pedophilia. In addition, the movie fails to mention what ever happened to Walter Collins. Meanwhile, in real life Stewart admits to killing Walter with an axe to the head. Hollywood also failed to mention that Christine Collins husband was in prison. One thing that the movie did portray was how the LAPD was corrupted and how they so baldy mistreated Christine Collins when she was sure that the boy they found was not her son. Because of the way Hollywood altered the movie in so many ways, they were simply trying to rearrange the facts so that they could make money off of their version of the story.

    b) I do believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. By producing movies such as this one, viewers can become more educated and aware of what is really going on in the real world. People can learn valuable facts from films such as these. It may help prevent people from committing such crimes given the consequences descriptively portrayed in the films.

    c) If I could change anything about the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I would change the fact that Louise, Stewart’s mother, was greatly involved in the murders. This is a key factor in this incident and it should not have been left out in the movie. Louise was as much as a criminal as her son. In addition, I would change it to be known in the movie that Christine Collins husband is in jail. We are left with an unknown thought as to where her husband is in the movie. All that is mentioned is that he “was scared and ran away.” If hollywood could have incorporated these facts and other details, it would have made for a better movie with more factual evidence from the “true life” chronicle.

  58. Aziz AlSulaiti
    December 2, 2010 at 1:42 am | #58

    A) I think the movie “Changeling” did an overall good job of trying to highlight the events of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders although not accurately. I can see that the events are very parallel and defiantly do correlate. With that being said the movie is almost all told through the mother’s eyes (Angelina Jolie) instead of through the criminal himself, Gordon Stewart Northcott. That is possibly part of the necessities for it to be successful as a film. There is evident features in the movie such as the emotional involvement of the mother, that also proves Hollywood interference with the story.
    B) I think that it is not a good idea to be suching up the mentality of a psychopath and blast it through the media and into the pool of anonymous minds. This information might be transported to the wrong person who might take it the wrong way. After all, who knows how many potential-psychopaths there are out there receiving all kinds of bad influence from the media. With that being said this movie is good and informational as well, but I don’t think it should be public media as much as it should be educational.
    C) If I was to change anything in the movie, “Changling”, to make its events more similar to those of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I would change the whole view of the story. I would want it to be told through Gordon’s eyes. After all, he is the one who is causing the main event and I think everyone would want to know how his twisted mind works and possibly even why he did it. Also in the movie I would like to address that Christine Collins’s husband is in jail, just to get it in the picture.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.