Sources & Methodology

Transparency is the foundation of credibility. At Shadow Archive, we are committed to showing our work, documenting our sources, and making our research process visible to readers. Every story we publish is backed by a rigorous methodology that prioritizes verifiable, publicly available information from credible sources.

This page explains how we select sources, verify information, handle conflicting accounts, and maintain the highest standards of research integrity. We believe readers have the right to understand not just what we report, but how we know it.

Source Selection Criteria

Not all sources are created equal. Shadow Archive employs a strict hierarchy of source credibility, always prioritizing the most direct, contemporaneous, and authoritative documentation available.

What Qualifies as a Reliable Source:

• Primary Sources: Documents created at the time of the event by direct participants or official authorities—court transcripts, police reports, contemporary newspaper articles, government records, and firsthand accounts.
• Official Records: Legal documents, investigative files, autopsy reports (when publicly available), trial transcripts, and government archives that provide authoritative information about events.
• Academic Research: Peer-reviewed studies, scholarly books, and academic journal articles that analyze cases with rigorous methodology and citation standards.
• Reputable Journalism: Investigative reporting from established news organizations with fact-checking processes and editorial oversight, particularly contemporary coverage of events.
• Expert Analysis: Published work by recognized experts in relevant fields—forensic scientists, legal scholars, historians, anthropologists, and cultural researchers.

What We Avoid: We do not rely on anonymous sources, unverified social media claims, conspiracy theory websites, sensationalist tabloids, or sources with clear conflicts of interest. When we must reference such sources for context (for example, when documenting the spread of an urban legend), we explicitly label them as unreliable.

Source Hierarchy

When multiple sources are available, we follow a clear hierarchy of credibility:

1. Court Records & Legal Documents: Official trial transcripts, verdicts, sentencing documents, and appellate decisions represent the most authoritative accounts of criminal cases. These are our gold standard for true crime coverage.
2. Police & Investigation Files: When publicly released, official police reports, investigation summaries, and forensic analyses provide crucial details about cases.
3. Contemporary Newspaper Archives: Articles published at the time of events, before modern analysis and interpretation, offer valuable primary perspectives. We prioritize major newspapers with established reputations (New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, etc.).
4. Government Archives: Declassified documents from agencies like the FBI, CIA, and national archives provide official perspectives on historical events.
5. Academic Books & Studies: Scholarly works that synthesize primary sources and provide expert analysis, particularly those published by university presses or in peer-reviewed journals.
6. Investigative Journalism: Well-researched books and articles by journalists who have conducted original research and interviews.
7. Secondary Sources: General reference works, documentaries, and popular books that compile information from primary sources. We use these for context but always verify claims against primary documentation.

Verification Process

Every significant claim in our articles undergoes multi-source verification:

Cross-Referencing: We require corroboration from at least two independent sources for factual claims. If only one source exists, we note this limitation explicitly in the article.

Timeline Verification: Dates, sequences of events, and chronologies are checked against multiple sources. When sources disagree on timing, we note the discrepancy and explain which account we find more credible and why.

Handling Conflicting Accounts: Historical records often contain contradictions. When sources conflict, we:

• Present both accounts transparently
• Explain the nature of the conflict
• Evaluate which source is more likely to be accurate based on proximity to events, corroboration, and credibility
• Acknowledge when we cannot definitively resolve the conflict

Fact-Checking Workflow: Each article undergoes review for factual accuracy, with particular attention to proper names, dates, locations, legal outcomes, and quoted material. We verify that quotes are accurate and properly attributed.

Primary Source Categories

Shadow Archive draws from several categories of primary sources, each with specific strengths:

Court Transcripts & Legal Documents: Trial records provide verbatim accounts of testimony, evidence presentation, legal arguments, and judicial decisions. These are invaluable for understanding what was proven in court versus what was alleged or speculated.

Police Reports & Investigation Files: When publicly available through freedom of information requests or case resolution, these documents reveal investigative processes, evidence collection, and the evolution of cases over time.

Contemporary Newspaper Archives: Historical newspapers capture how events were understood and reported at the time, before decades of reinterpretation. They also document public reaction and cultural context.

Government Declassified Documents: Archives like the FBI Vault, CIA Reading Room, and national archives of various countries provide official documentation of investigations, intelligence operations, and government responses to events.

Academic Research: Peer-reviewed studies in criminology, forensic science, anthropology, folklore studies, and history provide expert analysis and rigorous methodology. We particularly value studies that have undergone academic peer review.

Archival Collections: University libraries, historical societies, and specialized archives often hold unique documents, letters, photographs, and records related to historical cases and phenomena.

Citation Standards

Every article on Shadow Archive includes a dedicated "Sources" section listing the specific documents, books, archives, and materials used in research. We provide enough detail for readers to locate and verify our sources independently.

Why We Cite: Citations serve multiple purposes—they allow readers to verify our claims, provide pathways for deeper research, demonstrate the depth of our investigation, and hold us accountable for accuracy.

How to Verify Our Work: Readers are encouraged to:

• Review the sources listed at the bottom of each article
• Access court records through legal databases or courthouse archives
• Consult newspaper archives through libraries or digital archives
• Review academic studies through university libraries or databases like JSTOR
• Contact us if they find discrepancies or have access to sources we may have missed

Source Limitations & Transparency

We acknowledge that historical research has inherent limitations:

Incomplete Records: Not all historical events are fully documented. Police files may be sealed, court records may be lost, and contemporary accounts may be sparse. When documentation is limited, we state this explicitly rather than filling gaps with speculation.

Conflicting Information: Historical sources often contradict each other. Witnesses remember events differently, newspapers report conflicting details, and official records may contain errors. We present these conflicts honestly and explain our reasoning when we favor one account over another.

Evolving Understanding: New evidence emerges, cold cases are solved, and historical interpretations change. We commit to updating articles when significant new information becomes available and noting the date of updates.

Access Restrictions: Some records remain sealed, classified, or restricted. When we cannot access primary sources, we rely on the best available secondary sources and note the limitation.

Cultural Context: For folklore and international cases, we acknowledge the challenges of translation, cultural interpretation, and accessing sources in other languages. We consult cultural experts and academic sources to ensure appropriate context.

Ongoing Research

Shadow Archive is a living project. As new sources become available, as archives are digitized, and as researchers publish new findings, we update our articles to reflect the most current and accurate information available. Each article includes a "Last Updated" date so readers know when the content was most recently reviewed.

We welcome input from researchers, family members, legal professionals, and anyone with access to sources we may have missed. Our commitment is to accuracy and completeness, and we view corrections and additions as opportunities to improve our archive.

Last Updated: January 15, 2026