A Note on the Amelia Wilson Story, Authorship, and the Use of My Work by Charles Town Ghost Tours

I do not usually write posts like this, and I would rather spend my time reporting than defending work that should speak for itself. But in this case, I think the record deserves to be clear.

My article on the 1969 murder of Amelia Wilson in Charles Town, West Virginia, was independently researched and written by me for Sad Endings. That reporting was not casual or derivative. It was built through archival newspaper research, original reporting, direct contact with Amelia Wilson’s family, and an original interview with her son. It also drew on materials from my case archive, family-provided media, and photographs published on my site.

Recently, Ann Fern, who operates Charles Town Ghost Tours, a local ghost-tour business with an associated Facebook page, published a series of posts about the Amelia Wilson case. In one of those posts, Charles Town Ghost Tours stated in the first person, “I wrote about this case several years ago,” while presenting a detailed narrative of the case. In context, that wording created the impression that the page was presenting the story as its own write-up.

The post also drew on media associated with my reporting package, including my enhanced version of Amelia Wilson’s portrait, a vintage Turf Diner postcard I had sourced and published, and a photograph of the apartment building that I took myself.

My concern was not simply that someone else discussed the case. People are free to discuss public history and unsolved crimes. I publish archival research and make my research materials public whenever I can so others can follow the record for themselves. The issue here was never access to archives. It was the use of my reporting in a way that created an inaccurate impression about who had done the work. The overlap was not limited to broad facts available in old newspaper reports. It extended to the way the case had been reconstructed, assembled, and presented.

After I raised concerns privately, I made clear that my objection was not simply about whether sources might be cited later. I told Ann Fern that her posts had created “an inaccurate impression about the authorship” of my Sad Endings article and that they had reused “at least one photograph I took, without permission or attribution.” In response, Fern wrote, “When I finish the post I will cite ALL sources as I have for many years,” and had earlier stated, “Had you waited until the end of the posts you would have seen a list of sources, your name included.”

That response did not address the heart of the problem. My concern was not whether someone may have mentioned Amelia Wilson’s case at an earlier point. My concern was that the posts created an inaccurate impression about the authorship and reporting behind my Sad Endings article, while also republishing at least one of my photographs without permission.

To be clear, at least one of those images was my own photograph, republished without my permission. Other family-provided photographs were shared with me in the course of my reporting, not supplied to Charles Town Ghost Tours for reuse in its own posts.

Later, after I objected, Charles Town Ghost Tours added language acknowledging that quotes had been used from a blog by “J. Topping.” That confirms that my work was used. But the attribution came only after I raised the issue, not at the outset, when readers were first given the impression that this was the page’s own write-up. I also never used the name “J. Topping” in my communications. Using an abbreviated name instead of my published byline made the source harder for readers to identify and made my reporting more difficult to find.

Even after that, when a commenter asked where the reporting could be found, Charles Town Ghost Tours did not plainly direct readers to my article. That comment exchange was later removed from the page, but I preserved a screenshot of it. Instead, readers were generically pointed to archive sources and other materials, as though the sourcing trail had simply appeared on its own rather than being located and assembled through my reporting. That is part of why I am writing this now. If my work was used, readers deserve a clear record of that.

I also want to address one other aspect of this. In a later post, Charles Town Ghost Tours criticized pages that ask for “a tip” or “a donation,” suggesting that such support amounts to exploiting victims. I do not offer subscriptions, and in context I believe readers can judge for themselves what that comment was meant to imply.

That criticism is especially striking because the families I work with have willingly participated in my reporting. They have sat for interviews, shared photographs, and entrusted me with material connected to their loved ones. At least one photograph I took was later republished by Charles Town Ghost Tours without my permission. Other family-provided photographs were shared with me in the course of my reporting, not supplied to Charles Town Ghost Tours as part of its own work.

I also reject any implication that this work was somehow detached from the interests of Amelia Wilson’s family. It was done with their willing participation and trust. More than that, it had a real-world effect: through my research, I was able to help reconnect surviving family with information about Gary Wilson’s remains after he disappeared in 1984. That is not exploitation. It is one example of what serious, careful reporting can make possible. It is also why some of Fern’s later commentary struck me as especially misplaced. She was stepping into sensitive family matters without understanding my ongoing relationship with Amelia Wilson’s family or the context in which this work was done.

I have no issue defending a tip jar attached to original reporting. This work involves real costs, including hosting, records requests, and many hours of research and writing. There is a meaningful difference between doing that work and asking readers to support it, and repackaging that reporting while taking swipes at the person who did the work and using the case itself to generate attention for a business.

I am not claiming ownership over the historical fact of Amelia Wilson’s murder. No one owns history, and no one owns a public case file. But original reporting does matter. The work of locating archives, assembling a narrative, contacting the family, conducting interviews, verifying details, and publishing a coherent account is real work. That work is the product. When that product is used in a way that blurs authorship or downplays its origin, it has a real impact.

So let me state the facts plainly.

I independently researched and wrote the Amelia Wilson article published on Sad Endings. When I reported that story, I was not working from any substantial modern write-up of the case. As best I could determine through my own research, the available record consisted mainly of archival newspaper coverage and brief reference material, not a detailed modern narrative. Charles Town Ghost Tours did not write, report, or contribute to that article.

It includes original reporting, including an interview with Amelia Wilson’s son, materials from my case archive, family-provided media, and photographs published by Sad Endings. Any implication that Charles Town Ghost Tours authored that article or its original reporting is inaccurate.

I am writing this not because I enjoy disputes like this, but because authorship matters, attribution matters, and original reporting matters.

Readers can draw their own conclusions. Mine is simple: this was my reporting, my work was used, and the attribution came only after I raised the issue.

Note: After I first requested attribution, my account was blocked from directly viewing Charles Town Ghost Tours posts on Facebook. I am grateful to supporters who flagged the issue and helped preserve evidence.