After 5 Years Of Research On Elliott Smith’s Death, I Got Edited Out Of Wikipedia’s Article

Written by | March 4, 2016 5:33 am | No Comments

CA.Smith.2.0325.RG –– Singer/songwriter Elliot Smith at the Sunset Sound Factory, Wednesday, March 25, 1998. Smith, who is from Portland, wrote andperformed songs that were used on the Good Will Hunting soundtrack.Photo/Art by:Robert Gauthier


For more than 5 years, Rock NYC has been trying to find out the truth about Elliott Smith’s death. It is a murky, sad, and tragic story which has been neglected by the authorities for 12 years, and doing this independent research has brought to light many new findings, which have challenged the official story. Otherwise the audience will be stuck with the official story, the suicide narrative entertained by Gil Reyes’ documentary ‘Searching for Elliott Smith’, and W. T. Schultz’s book ‘Torment Saint’. When you think about it, Schultz does not even mention the lawsuit that Jennifer Chiba attempted against the estate, and many people reading my articles or visiting the Justice for Elliott Smith site (which gathers all the articles about the investigation) were stunned to learn about the details of the lawsuit. And this is just an example. Would Schultz have even mentioned Chiba’s DUI in his book if I hadn’t published about it before?

For a little while, one of my articles was linked to Elliott Smith’s Wikipedia’s page, as someone had added this sentence to the section concerning his death, ‘With Smith’s death not officially declared a suicide, journalist Alyson Camus noted discrepancies in the case that suggest foul play’ followed by a reference to one of my articles. Last January, after building the website ‘Justice for Elliott Smith’, I added myself a sentence referring to my research: ‘A website dedicated to the investigation into his mysterious death has posted the entire autopsy and police reports and brings even more questions’… I was not even pushing any idea, I was mostly referring to the autopsy report that I have posted in its entirety on the website.

To my surprised, not even a month after the addition, an anonymous user edited out all my references, leaving the comment in the Talk section of Wikipedia:Why is Alyson Camus allowed to insert herself and her website into this article? She’s had a long standing vendetta against Jennifer Chiba and I’m not sure why her personal blog should be sourced here.’

While we are mentioning vendetta, it’s clear that this person has an agenda against what I am doing. I tried to fight the edit but I was told by moderators, that my proposition ‘in Wikipedia’s terms’ is a ‘conflict of interest’. How could this be a conflict of interest when I don’t benefit financially from this? I don’t have a book to sell, I don’t even receive any money if more people visit my site! It is not self-promotion, just call this truth promotion!

‘You cannot push your personal agenda on Wikipedia’ I was told by the moderator… which is again ridiculous, because I don’t have any agenda except bringing more information about this case to more and more people. How could publishing the autopsy report, the most objective of all the documents related to this sad story, be pushing a personal agenda? Are they afraid of the truth? Are they afraid to read about all the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the case? Because this is pretty much what I have been trying to do all these years, not pushing a personal agenda, rather bringing information, in the most objective way possible. Sure some of the articles are very damaging for Jennifer Chiba’s reputation, but it was only the case because they were either reporting what other people had to say about her or reporting about facts,… like the fact she removed the knife when Elliott was still standing, or the fact she didn’t call 911 right away, or the fact she refused to talk to the police… in the general narrative perpetuated by the media, a lot of these important details have escaped to a lot of people… So what does it say about Wikipedia? That you are only able to contribute if you rehash the overall politically correct status, if you stay neutral, and don’t bring any controversy, or ask any questions. A case, which has not been closed by the police after more than 12 years of non-investigation deserves more than a short paragraph which doesn’t fail to mention almost irrelevant details such as the misspelling on the alleged post-it note or girlfriend Jennifer Chiba calling Larry Crane in tears… when there are so many more relevant things to say? I have been doing research about Elliott Smith’s death for more than 5 years and these people know better than me what to include in an article about his death? Don’t go to Wikipedia to know the truth, you will only learn about the surface of a story, edited a million times by people who have an undeserved authority on a subject they know very little about, and whose goal is to make a subject appear as simple and uncontroversial as possible.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *