Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Age: Almost three and death date

• Since these dates are given for her birth and death(August 9, 2005 – June 16, 2008), it would seem she would have been 2 years and 10 months or almost three. I don't think it would be WP:OR for the article to say that.
• Also, the June 16 date is the date stated by the defense that she drowned. If she was in fact killed some time after that, shouldn't the date be "August 9, 2005 – unknown, 2008"? Also a ref for birth date would be nice. Didn't see that date in first ref, but maybe I missed it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why defense challenge/testimonies usually get more space

Just an example. Prosecution witness Jackie Jones says "I saw Sam Smith kill Gerry Green in the parking lot of the restaurant May 12 at 10Pm." Which of the following challenges to that testimony does one leave out of the article: Credible witnesses who saw Jackie Jones elsewhere at that time? Court documents showing that Jackie Jones lost a lawsuit to Sam Smith and owes him $50,000? Mrs. Sam Smith's testimony that she divorced Jackie Jones to marry Sam Smith? A bar tender who says a drunk Jackie Jones said he'd get even with Sam Smith by testifying Smith killed Greene? Think about it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying that the defense should be given more weight than the prosecution in the Witness testimony section, I disagree. The defense challenge/testimonies usually do not get more space in Wikipedia articles...because Wikipedia is typically supposed to go by WP:Neutral. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that WP:RS may show that disproving what seems like simple prosecution evidence or testimony can be a very lengthy process and in some cases several defense challenges must be raised and are covered in detail. But we are discussing generalities and should only talk about specifics. Just something running through my mind the last few days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't Casey have her own page?

Just curious to know what the reasons are. Sfour (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Casey_Anthony. CarolMooreDC 05:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks Sfour (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

The article lists a definitive date of death of June 16, 2008. What is the basis for that?--agr (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It does need ref. Definitely asserted by defense and that ref easily found. But prosecution ref also need. I'm sure the prosecution also uses it, though on what basis and with what theory, I'm not sure. For now, a "citation needed" would be good. CarolMooreDC 16:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "last reported" obviously perfect solution cause everything else is just theory until we hear definitively from participant(s). And even then some will find info questionable... CarolMooreDC 22:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine?

The comment in the first paragraph about Time Magazine's comment about the situation has nothing to do with anything. Why is it there? It provides no information about the subject and had no effect on the occurances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.108.135 (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a comment showing it's a notable case and worthy of an article. CarolMooreDC 02:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It used to be better placed, when we had a paragraph that started off with the media attention given to the case, but was changed last month when the lead (intro) was significantly expanded. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On that note, it's probably best to place it at the end of the fourth paragraph, after the information about how the public reacted to the trial. It can simply be worded as "Time magazine described the case as the social media trial of the century." I prefer that leads describe the topic and then go into why it is notable anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Page Name change Caylee Anthony

Changing the page name to Caylee Anthony to keep it short and simple — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nultiaaliyah1 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed. The person that was Caylee Anthony was not notable during her lifetime. Her death was the event that propelled the name to public notability. That death and its aftermath, rather than any achievements made during her lifetime (as there were none, unfortunately), are the events to which her name will historically be associated. This is a pretty standard practice on WikiPedia. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

CASEY DESERVES HER OWN PAGE!

CASEY HAS LOADS ON INFORMATION ABOUT HERSELF THAT HAS GAINED HER NOTORIETY. I BELIEVE THAT A PAGE BASED ON SOLELY HER SHOULD BE MADE THIS INSTANT!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.67.177 (talk • contribs) 23:26, October 31, 2011

So make one already. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Casey_Anthony for discussions on this issue. And please not all caps. CarolMooreDC 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

This article is incorrectly name "Death of Caylee Anthony." This article should in fact be called "Murder of Caylee Anthony." The death certificate of Caylee Marie Anthony clearly states that her death was a homicide and was prosecuted at first-degree murder in the State of Florida. Continuing to leave this page without the proper heading is not only factually flawed by also blatant disrespect of a dead child. Please address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeliaSobel (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed your later vandalism before noticing this. Since Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder it would be against WP:BLP to call it murder. Please read wikipedia policies at the help page. CarolMooreDC 05:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think AmeliaSobel was referring to the official determination of the cause of death and suggesting that the article title should reflect it. Casey Anthony's acquittal does not dispute the conclusion that the death was murder; it only asserts that Casey Anthony, under the law, is not guilty of it. I don't have any real opinion about AmeliaSobel's request one way or the other, but I think this may clarify it somewhat. Rhsimard (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The official determination was not murder, it was "homicide by undetermined means". All murders involve a homicide (in that murder is the unlawful intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought), but not all homicides are murder (for example, manslaughter). Thus, the official determination of the cause of death does not support changing the name of the article from "Death of Caylee Anthony" to the "Murder of Caylee Anthony". Hope that helps clear that up... AzureCitizen (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I don't think an accidental drowning would be labeled a homicide and that was the theory that the defense advanced and which time may yet prove is the actual case. Or, far less likely, someone could credibly confess to an actual intentional murder. Of course, some murders don't even have the name murder in the title, like Lindbergh kidnapping. CarolMooreDC 06:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh get real. Anyone with half a brain knows that this child didn't accidentally die by drowning. If she accidentally died, it was by her mother's hand, I'll tell ya that. It was either an accidental death on Casey's part or a murder on Casey's part. Casey says it was an accident, but by drowning. I'm sorry, but the defense's drowning theory (emphasis on "theory") was senseless when you compare it to the prosecution's evidence. Casey got the idea for a drowning from her mother when her mother told her of the "latest story." Casey said "surprise, surprise" sarcastically and didn't think much of it. Why would she say that and act like that if that was what actually happened to her child? It was also reported that an inmate of hers had a drowning incident very similar to the story she spewed. It looks like Casey got the idea for details of what happened to Caylee from that story. Secondly, the prosecution is right that no one makes an accident look like murder. Not unless they would want to frame someone, and I don't see George wanting to frame Casey. Besides that, the dogs hit on that car as decomposition. Everyone who smelled that trunk says that it was decomposition. Despite the defense treating us like idiots, anyone who has smelled the smell of death, in this case a human body, knows what it smells like and that it is an unmistakable (vile) odor. I say that with regrettable experience. There's no way in hell that smell was the smell of the garbage bag in that trunk. The fact that so many people testified that it was the smell of a decomposing corpse was enough for me to believe that Caylee's body had been in that trunk. And if not Caylee's, then someone else's. As for someone else confessing to an intentional murder, Casey already put forth her story. So for someone else to say they did it, that would mean she was lying and that she dragged her father's name through the mud to save her own hide, which most of us already believe. Why lie about it being an accident and say that her father covered it up if someone else killed Caylee? The only answer I can think of is that Casey had a part in Caylee's death. Casey telling as many lies as she did tells me that she had a part in her daughter's death. Does lying make someone a murderer? No. But when it is lie after lie to cover up what happened to your child coupled with very odd behavior and evidence that the child's death was foul play, there's a very high chance that said person murdered their child. Not to forget, she was the last relative to see Caylee alive. I'm with those who believe that the jury interpreted reasonable doubt too narrowly. Others have been put behind bars on far less evidence. 193.53.4.252 (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Oh get real"? Well, you certainly make a persuasive argument there, Mr. Anonymous IP. Since I'd like to think I have at least half a brain, and I want to be "real", then I guess I'm all for supporting your view. Oh, but wait, wait... we need some of those pesky reliable sources. Oh, and there's the whole matter of precedent and title policy... looks like we may have to keep the article un-biased and appropriately sourced. But hey, thanks for playing, we hoped you enjoyed your time. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Too many people are in jail - or facing the death penalty - for bogus or questionable evidence. Luckily, Wikipedia has a higher standard of evidence/sources than your average criminal trial. I guess Casey should thank Nancy Grace for a) making her so famous the jury didn't want to convict on that weak evidence and b) ensureing that she got her own wikipedia article. Anyway, please read WP:Soapbox and stick to specific editing issues. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 13:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To the sarcastic Boneyard, my argument extended far beyond "get real." Demonstrated right before yours. That you chose to ignore that and and be a dick, asking for sources for my viewpoint, when Carol did not provide sources for his or hers (likely a her with that name), is ridiculous. It's a viewpoint, the same as Carol's that "someone could credibly confess to an actual intentional murder." I correctly opined that this would mean Casey Anthony was lying yet again, if the person who were to step forward is not also lying that is. Nothing from Casey Anthony's mouth can be trusted. Society already knows this. And, regardless, sources most assuredly can be found for my comments about the jailhouse information. It should be in this article. Already present in the article is the stuff about the prosecution and the dogs.

To Carol, the evidence was not bogus or questionable. To you it is. But by looking at this talk page and skimming through the Wikipedia archives listed at the top, you are an obvious Casey Anthony supporter. I don't believe that a hater or supporter should be editing this article, that's for damn sure. But back to the evidence, the trunk evidence, for example, was solid evidence. These dogs are well-trained to sniff out human decomposition. Not only did they sniff it out, every human identified it as human decomposition. Explaining the smell away as "old garbage" was what was weak "evidence." I don't know why you are going on about Wikipedia. Wikipedia has nothing to do with convicting Casey Anthony. I am not talking about Wikipedia or saying that Wikipedia should say that she's guilty. I was replying to your assertions, which I found to be weak. As for the jury, they didn't want to send Casey to her death on evidence that was circumstantial. Some have said that. Had she been up for manslaughter or a weaker charge, she would have certainly been convicted. Just like Scott Peterson, who was convicted on less evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not weak. It can be just as solid as any other, and is what most crimes are solved on. Too many people are suffering from the CSI effect nowadays, which appears to be the case for you too. Nancy Grace did not sway most of the public into believing that Casey Anthony is guilty. Most of us did not need swaying. Keep in mind that legal commentators, who are experienced in such cases, also voiced their opinions about the case and largely echoed the public's sentiments. I, and I know many others, used common sense. That is what the jury should have done, in addition to the evidence. Especially since most of them believe in their hearts that she is responsible for Caylee's death. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Casey Anthony played a part in her daughter's death. Whether intentional or not.

Anyway, sticking to editing issues: No, I don't agree that the article title should be moved. I agree with AzureCitizen. 193.53.4.252 (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested outline by SlimVirgin and discussion

I was asked to comment here. The article as currently written is confusing, which is understandable, because this was an extraordinarily complex sequence of events. Writing about it involves imposing a strong narrative structure, one that can accommodate the frequent shifts in point of view needed to guide the reader through what was known at any given time.

I've worked on several articles like this, where a major part of the story was how the events unfolded. This is (roughly) the subhead structure I would use here. Note: in the trial section, from the "Chloroform and other computer searches" subhead onwards, I would arrange the subheads in approximate chronological order, depending on when the issues were first introduced by witnesses (I just can't remember what that was, offhand), but in each section I would include the prosecution and defence witness evidence.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia does not adopt an American judicial point of view. We just report what the sources said, and the best source here is the trial itself.

• Disappearance and death as initially reported

• First reports of the disappearance (July 2008, including the grandparents' 911 call, explanation about the 30 days, the car, the smell, etc)
• Early Casey Anthony interviews with detectives
• Nancy Grace involvement (intense interest, which continued during and after the trial)
• Casey Anthony arrest
• Hiring of Jose Baez
• Jailhouse tapes
• Grand jury indictment (Casey Anthony release, indictment, re-arrest, plea of not guilty)
• Discovery of the body (events of December 2008, as reported at the time)

• Trial of Casey Anthony

• Background (names of lawyers, judge, where case heard, dates, etc)
• Opening arguments

• Prosecution
• Defense

• Chloroform and other computer searches (including that they were not as initially portrayed by the expert prosecution witness)
• Cadaver dog searches
• Casey Anthony's behavior (Blockbuster video, partying, tattoo etc, including opinion of the grief expert)
• Zanny the Nanny
• Duct tape (including the alleged sticker, and other relevant evidence from the crime scene)
• Trunk of the car (smell, stains, insects, both sides)
• Roy Kronk (August and December searches, his son)
• George and Lee Anthony (sexual abuse allegations, George mistress, what the mistress said)
• Cindy Anthony (private detectives, psychic, alleged perjury re: chloroform searches)
• Swimming pool allegations (evidence or lack thereof, pictures, etc)
• Casey Anthony decision not to take the stand
• Closing arguments

• Prosecution
• Defense (including interruption for This laughing guy right here)

• Verdict (including release of Casey Anthony, and later arguments about probation)

• Media coverage

• Coverage throughout the case
• Response to the verdict

• Caylee's Law
• Civil litigation

To accommodate issues where at first X was believed, but was later shown to be false, you can link to later sections to guide the reader back and forth through the narrative. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Another important point. An article like this needs lots of in-text attribution. For example, "Kronk told the police on [date] that X, then told the court on [date] that Y," followed by a clear inline citation to only the most accurate source for each point. The article should never say "Kronk said ..." without making clear to whom and when. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a more coherent presentation overall. I might add or subtract a few items here and there, but the format makes that easier. Obviously it takes a lot of knowledge of the case to know which evidence is worth mentioning if it was not presented at trial - and even if it was - and a lot of work to properly reference it. (Your tips on referencing are excellent.) I ended up getting hooked on the topic so have done much of that work. The big problem is if people have the strong POV of most of the population and therefore resist an NPOV presentation that shows in detail just how the defense managed to defang the prosecution and get an acquittal.CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral (i.e. disinterested) point of view is achieved here simply by summarizing what the most accurate sources reported. And I think this structure (everything relevant about Kronk in one subsection, everything relevant about chloroform in another, etc), will help the reader to see: "Ah, so this point was crucial; oh, perhaps not; ah, yes it was), and so on, through the twists and turns. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We've had several discussions on headings and subheadings. The ones you've outlined are an awful lot of both. Some of them seem trivial and no doubt would be argued, at least by me, for combining several of them as we've done in the past. As expressed in your outline, I agree that more information could be added, but there were upset editors about making additions to the article (which is one reason I've held off), and in fact, recent work has been done at trimming the article. Most of the things listed are already in the article, and so it sounds like this is another "restructuring" besides one already proposed. So basically the two approaches to the article are either putting things in chrono order or grouping things by topic. Both have advantages and disadvantages. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronological order can't work with an article like this, because there was too much change to the narrative as it progressed. Here are examples of other "death of/crime" articles I've written that had the same problem: Death of Ian Tomlinson (featured), Muhammad al-Durrah incident (featured), and Jeremy Bamber. All three incidents presented the same kind of problem to the writer, in the sense that the narrative kept changing, so you had to constantly shift your perspective to ask "what was reported at this time," rather than "what do we think we know now?" Otherwise it gets too confusing for the reader. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I thank you for coming here with your knowledge and experience of these kind of articles. This is, indeed, a difficult article to write. The main problem as I see it, is the title: Death of Caylee Anthony. It prohibits us from going into Casey's probation, for instance, because it is about her fraud convictions which are beyond the article scope as now named. Another problem is a constant changing of references by one editor, CarolMooredc that are sometimes good but other times are inappropriate, and in any case, needlessly undos the work of other editors in particular with videos and audios of, police tapes and trial tapes which you seem to agree are valid sources in this kind of article and which many of us have maintained. If we attempt to change them back she puts has 3RR warnings on our talk pages and here and/or threatens to go to a noticeboard. She also argues for more information in the article about George Anthony and the (unproven)charges of molesting Casey and covering up Caylee's death which could cause WP:BLP problems. When we show her the video or audio tapes to prove what actually happened she states they are inappropriate sources. As to the restructure proposal, I have no personal prior experience with this kind of article and would go along with the consensus of editors on whatever they decide. I have no personal preference and think that either the present structure or what you propose are both good ideas. Mugginsx (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, and other editors, what do you think of SlimVirgin's restructure proposal? I think it is something to consider. Mugginsx (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

SV's proposal seems to be the most concise and easy to understand structure I've seen so far. Especially in regard to eliminating an "evidence" section in favor of a "prosecution case vs. defense case" type of treatment. In a complex case such as this one, you have to write it assuming the reader knows nothing and is easily confused by masses of detail (me included). I also think much too much emphasis is being put on "publicity" and "media reaction". Before, during, after...enough already! Two, maybe three paragraphs max about the ravings of that rabid, annoying Nancy Grace and all the other so-called "journalists"(excuse the POV). SV also makes a very good point about laying things out clearly in easily digestible chunks to help the reader follow the "narrative", so to speak, instead of forcing them to navigate a maze of indiscriminate detail. The use of sub-headings as suggested by SV is a good way of accomplishing this.Shirtwaist ☎ 23:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

After reading a couple comments just want to clarify that I am not thinking of a big evidence section but merely what evidence led to the indictment (which was, after all, before a body was found) and a brief description of what was contained in some of the bigger document dumps. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Another of my concerns are the words "you can link to later sections to guide the reader back and forth...". It sounds like this might be a literary maze that must be traversed in order to understand the article. I guess it depends on how many links to other sections there are going to be. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 01:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, and it's important not to overuse internal linking. I do it only when an important issue arises early on that is later contradicted, but where explaining the contradiction would require introducing the readers to a tangent, or level of complexity, the article had not prepared them for. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's one reason to keep the pre-trial evidence descriptions minimal since all sorts of things were released under Florida's freedom of information act that was barely evidence at all but was widely publicized. Anything that changed between the evidence at indictment and the evidence at trial would be the most important info that might need such . CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Shirtwaist, I don't see how SlimVirgin's proposal "seems to be the most concise and easy to understand structure," when it is divided up into a bunch of needless subheadings. Most GA and FA articles I have seen are not like that at all. To suggest that the reader cannot at least digest six paragraphs before moving on just because your attention span is different than others is not a valid reason to do so. And if you look at SlimVirgin's articles, though those sections typically only consist of three paragraphs, there is enough information filling them, whereas for the arbitrary subsection headings SlimVirgin suggested for this article, there is not. We shouldn't include section breaks for the hell of it. There should be a valid reason for doing so. And, no, "our readers are too attention span-challenged to read past three paragraphs" is not a valid reason. As for saying there is "too much emphasis" being put on "publicity" and "media reaction," I point out that it is the exact same emphasis that was put on it by America. Not just the media aspect of America either. The trial has been described as the "social media trial of the century" for a reason." We may not need a "before," "during" or "after" subsection, but to say that there should be "maybe three paragraphs max" is a joke. Your POV indeed. No other huge case on Wikipedia is only regulated to three paragraphs about the impact the case had on society. And to downplay this case's impact with only three paragraphs, that don't even begin to summarize how this case dominated public and media discussion, is absurd. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Second suggested outline - by Flyer22 and discussion

First, let me say that I do not believe "the article, as currently written, is confusing." But I am open to the basic outline aspects of SlimVirgin's proposal. I'll explain what I mean in a moment. I am familiar with SlimVirgin (not sure if SlimVirgin recognizes me), and SlimVirgin often has good ideas. But that said, with the exception of all those subheadings (if those are indeed subheading proposals) and separating media attention, I am okay with some of what SlimVirgin has proposed. I say "some" because all those subheadings are not needed. We should only split information into subheadings when needed. There is not even that much information in this article to justify all those subheadings. The Disappearance and death as initially reported subheading is weasel-wordy to me with the "as initially reported" part tagged on. All we'd need is Disappearance and death, and then include the information that has to do with that. This includes "first reports of the disappearance," "early Casey Anthony interviews with detectives," "Nancy Grace involvement" (excluding the media attention, since I feel that the media attention should all be covered in one spot). We also shouldn't clarify "Casey Anthony" in an "Arrest" or "Trial" subheading. We don't have to say "Arrest of Casey Anthony" and "Trial of Casey Anthony." It is clear that "arrest" and "trial" are about her from simply reading the lead. If readers do not read the lead to see what this article is about, that is not on us. I also disagree with Muggins that the title is the problem. It's the other title that was the problem, seeing as editors interpreted it too strictly and started removing things clearly related to the case, such as Caylee's Law and Caylee's Song. In the same way that editors interpreted the Casey Anthony trial title too narrowly, I feel that Muggins and others interpret the "Death of Caylee Anthony" title too narrowly. This debate is tired and has come up way too many times. There is never going to be a "perfect title" to cover this case. Not unless everyone agrees that "Casey Anthony case" works just fine. That doesn't have "trial" in it and is not "limiting" in any way, in my opinion. But see Changing article title to "Casey Anthony trial and RfC: Should the name of the article be changed to "Casey Anthony trial'? for two of the most recent discussions about why the article is currently titled "Death of Caylee Anthony." As I stated then, "The two topics are intricately and substantially linked. There is no way to discuss the death without discussing the trial and impact that had on society, and there is no way to discuss the trial without discussing the child's death and impact that had on society."

Now, moving back to formatting, the article should follow the following structure, in my opinion:

Disappearance and investigation (Both sections are not that big and are dealing with the same thing, such as Caylee's disappearance and the discovery of her body; therefore, they should both be combined; mention of Nancy Grace reporting on the case and her role in elevating it to national attention should go there, but I'm not talking about her ratings during coverage of the trial or her response to Mason that is currently in the Publicity and aftermath section...because those things should stay where they are.)

Arrests and charges (This can include "grand jury indictment," "Casey Anthony release," "indictment," "re-arrest," plea of not guilty.")

Criminal trial (We have to put "Criminal trial" because there is a civil case to address, so we should distinguish.)

• Evidence (There should be an Evidence section, and the "jailhouse tapes" should go there with all the other evidence. We should not have the evidence or witnesses split up into "Zanny the Nanny", "Duct tape," "Trunk of the car," "Roy Kronk," "George and Lee Anthony," "Cindy Anthony," "Swimming pool allegations." Not only is such division unneeded and sloppy, but lends WP:UNDUE weight to certain aspects.)
• Attorneys and jury
• Opening statements and witness testimony
• Closing arguments
• Verdict and sentence

Publicity and aftermath (There should be an aftermath subheading to indicate the things that happened after the trial and its impact. See September 11 attacks and Columbine High School massacre for examples. The examples are not about trials, but they do display aftermath headings/sections being included for widespread media topics similar to this.)

• Initial coverage
• Coverage during and following trial (This would include the responses to the verdict that are in the Public and media reactions section now. Dividing that section up into "Response to the verdict" is not needed and would make the section too big, since the "Defense, prosecution, and jury" section also has to do with responses to the verdict. It would also make the section mostly negative; most of the reaction to the verdict is negative, which includes the jury's response.)
• Defense, prosecution, and jury (Should continue to have a section to themselves, per my statements right above.)
• Civil litigation
• The Anthony family (There should be a section on what has happened to the Anthony family since the trial. Maybe it should be placed last, but it should exist.)
• Caylee's Law and tribute songs (The songs should not be excluded from this article.)

That is my opinion on how this article should be structured. I very much disagree with a whole bunch of unneeded subheadings. We could also ask people at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, who can give much-needed explanations about not having unneeded subheadings/sections. And Mugginsx and Carolmooredc, I ask that you keep your arguing in between the two outdent-anchors above, so that it does not disturb the rest of this section. Or at least split it off into a separate section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, I would agree with everyting except I would put all of the "Media Coverage" together in one section and in chronological order, of course. My reasoning is that anyone reading it can determine by its content whether it is before, during, or after. It is too much sub-sectioning for people's comments that are in and of themselves, self-explanatory. Mugginsx (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, it's too much to have it all under one heading, unless what is currently at the beginning of the Publicity and aftermath section (aka the initial coverage) is significantly cut down. What's in the Public and media reactions section is already seven paragraphs long, and, as you know, I have cut away unneeded things from it. What is currently there -- the significant reactions to the case, summarized in just seven paragraphs -- is needed if we are going to adequately cover the responses (as we should). It's not too much sub-sectioning to have an Initial coverage section. See the examples I gave above. Even one by SlimVirgin, the Death of Ian Tomlinson article (the "Early reaction and analysis" part). There are examples like that all over Wikipedia. Some people want to skip detail on initial coverage, and, when a section is long, that is one of the two reasons to divide it. The Public and media reactions section is hefty already and doesn't need the initial media coverage added to it. But, per your concern, it's not like we need to include an "Initial coverage" heading. If you notice, the beginning of the Publicity and aftermath section is already divided away from the media coverage that happened during and after the trial. We can just leave it that way (as in without a heading).

But, like I stated, if we combine the "before the trial" coverage with the "during and after the trial" coverage, then the former will need to be significantly downsized. I'd want it downsized to just one paragraph so that it only makes the Public and media reactions section eight paragraphs longer. Then the headings would look like this:

Publicity and aftermath

• Public and media reactions
• Defense, prosecution, and jury
• Civil litigation
• The Anthony family
• Caylee's Law and tribute songs

And that would be that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, two points: (1) the article ought to report the disappearance as initially reported. That is, the early sections ought to report only what was reported early on. And (2) an evidence subsection is precisely what ought to be avoided, because from the point of view of one side, including the jury, there was no evidence, or insufficient evidence. So the article should be written from the point of view of "prosecution case" and "defense case," approached as equally valid. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, I think that SlimVirgin makes a very good point with regard to the "Evidence" section. As to my understanding of what she is saying, The Evidence section is "repeated" in the "trial section" (what is not can be added) and, although it may seem perfectly understandable to us who work with this article every day, it could be confusing to persons reading this article and hearing about the case in "total" perhaps for the first time. My own opinion is that to consolidate with is in the Evidence Section into the Trial Section would make it easier to understand and just a cleaner and clearer looking article for the "public" without uncessary repetition. Mugginsx (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the article can report "the disappearance as initially reported" without having a "disappearance as initially reported" subheading. Again, there is not much information to have the Disappearance section split in two, and I don't see any good reason that it should be split in two. I also disagree with you about an Evidence section being avoided, because no matter what the jury felt about their being insufficient evidence ("insufficient" because even they don't believe there was no evidence), what the prosecution put forth was still called "evidence." Even the jury refers to it as "evidence." That said, I don't have much of an issue of dividing it up into "Prosecution case" and "Defense case," as long as there are no subheadings...unless they are needed. I just don't want the flow of the Witness testimony section disrupted with subheadings. Looking below this section, I am leaning more toward Carol's outline, but still disagree with "Casey Anthony" being in any heading, unnecessary subheadings, and with her suggestion about how the media and public reactions should be handled (see below for more). Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay... I changed the Publicity and aftermath section to this, which I think works fine/better than the previous version. However, I had the most difficult time deciding on a main heading; I went through the following ones: Media, Media and publicity, Media and social commentary, Media and societal impact, and Media commentary and social impact. The first one doesn't sufficiently describe the section as a whole. And I felt the same way about the following two. The last two seemed awkward or also "off" in some form, and so I finally decided on "Impact." Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is worse since it's not clear what "Impact" means - the actual topic of each section is in italics:

3 Impact
3.1 Initial coverage (media opinions, influence, modus operandi)
3.2 Trial coverage (media opinions, influence, modus operandi)
3.3 Aftermath
3.3.1 Defense, prosecution, and jury (comments on legal matters which were reported in the media)
3.3.2 Anthony family (miscellaneous issues which were reported in the media)
3.3.3 Civil cases (legal matters which were reported in the media)
3.3.4 "Caylee's Law" and tribute songs (legal matters and memorials which were reported in the media)

Again, the solution is to separate media coverage (where what the media does and says ABOUT all this which is its own very specific issue), from aftermath (which includes various legal and miscellaneous issues which the media sees fit to report on. Note that SlimVirgin also proposed such a separation. Media coverage as an issue and aftermath which is reported in the media are separate things. Isn't that common sense? CarolMooreDC 21:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not confusing to me in the least. "Impact" is quite clear. We don't have to say "Impact of the case" for people to know that's what we're talking about. I named it "Impact" because that is the best (not to mention simplest) title to blanket all of the above sections under, and because that simple heading is used for many other Wikipedia articles (ranging from murder topics to popular culture topics, some of which are either GA or FA). It always works out fine. I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated and are stressing "the actual topic of each section." Initial coverage is initial coverage; the title says it all. It shouldn't be titled "media opinions, influence, modus operandi," for example. The same goes for what you stated of the other sections. And let me point out that "Trial coverage" includes public opinion. Finally, your analysis of my changes shows that there is no way to truly separate media coverage from the aftermath. All of this is media coverage. However, I did separate "media coverage as an issue" from "aftermath which is reported in the media." The Initial and Trial coverage sections are sections covering media and public responses. The following sections are not about the media, with the exception of what Cheney Mason has to say about "the media assassination" of his client. Those sections are about the aftermath of the case and trial. All of these sections are covered under the blanket term "Impact." So, yes, that's common sense to me.

What is nonsensical, in my opinion, is having these sections covered at different parts of the article. There is no way that initial media responses should be covered higher in the article while the other media responses/coverage (including aftermath) should be covered much lower in the article, as seen with SlimVirgin's proposal. I've said this before, but the media and public responses are also about the aftermath; they are about the aftermath of the trial. Such formatting is done in various "big event" articles, including the September 11 attacks. Articles should cover societal impact of topics last. And if you look at SlimVirgin's proposal for this material, it goes like this:

• Media coverage

• Coverage throughout the case
• Response to the verdict

• Caylee's Law
• Civil litigation

The titles I considered -- Media, Media and publicity, Media and social commentary, Media and societal impact, and Media commentary and social impact -- are pretty much the same thing. And the way I changed the section is pretty much the same thing. The only differences in my changes and SlimVirgin's proposal (with regard to this section), besides the slight changes made to headings and the final two not being stand-alone sections, is that I don't have the initial coverage placed somewhere much higher in the article and I took into consideration your desire to have a section titled Aftermath. With all this information grouped under the blanket term Impact, and with the headings "Initial coverage" and "Trial coverage," the "Aftermath" heading is needed. And, as noted, it is by itself. It's just under "Impact" because it is part of the impact of this case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22 wrote: We don't have to say "Impact of the case" for people to know that's what we're talking about. Obviously we do, since I wasn't clear what you meant. And impact on what? Just too vague. In contrast, see Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden which has a broad "Aftermath" section that covers all bases, chronologically evidently. Death_of_Joseph_Smith has a section called "Consequences in the Latter Day Saint movement." Probably more of an impact on society than this case will have on anyone besides the Anthony's and the various parties to the trial. (Of course, any passages of Caylee's law probably will lead to the imprisonment of innocent parents and break up of famiies, so that can be covered in the future.)

However, for now I think it is more important to straighten out the evidence section which will make it easier to deal with the overly voluminous "impact section" and solicit more useful comments from the community. New computer almost straightened out but in second week of nasty cold so still not focusing overly, except where see notice especially new things I have a problem with. (Lots of old things I've never even mentioned to gripe about. :-) CarolMooreDC 15:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't feel we have to title the section "Impact of the case." I'm not sure how you misinterpreted the current heading to be unclear, but it's akin to saying that the Critical reception title seen in film articles needs to be titled "Critical reception of the film." Simply saying "Impact" is no different than simply saying "Disappearance," "Investigation," or "Aftermath." The name of the Wikipedia article tells us what the subject is in these cases. That's why the Disappearance section shouldn't be titled "Disappearance of Caylee Anthony," per WP:Manual of Style. However, if lengthening the title to "Impact of the case" is something you feel strongly about, I can agree to it as a compromise.

I'd be fine having all of this information grouped under the blanket title "Aftermath"...if all of it had to do with the aftermath of the case. But it doesn't. That's why my previous blanket title was "Publicity and aftermath." Some of this information deals with what happened before and during trial. But as another compromise, I could see splitting the section the following way, leaving out the Impact title entirely:

• Media coverage

• Initial coverage
• Trial coverage

• Aftermath

• Defense, prosecution, and jury
• Anthony family
• Civil cases
• Caylee's Law" and tribute songs

I can live with the Aftermath section standing on its own in this case, since it implies "the aftermath of the case and trial coverage." If you look, I proposed this in your section months ago, but you never replied.

As for the Evidence section, I already agreed to your proposal...minus too many subsection headings.

Griping about other things -- old things you never griped about? From my experience, this article could already be GA if not for some formatting issues (reference formatting, stuff that needs copyediting). I'm certain that the GA reviewer wouldn't see what you perceive to be problems. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed some proposal in the past. That structure is better. Couple thoughts:

• Some media coverage is relevant contemporaneously to the investigation and trial though it can be mentioned in passing without having its own section.
• Comments of defense, prosecution and jury really are too important to stick after a long media section. Why not as another section under trial, while reader's minds still focused?
• The more controversial subject of Caylee's Law should be a separate section from the issue of the memorials, which also include the one held at the site her body was found and talk about doing a memorial there. CarolMooreDC 14:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem about having missed this proposal earlier. Or having forgotten about it, LOL. A lot was going on then.

Comments made by the defense, prosecution and jury belong in the Aftermath section, in my opinion, because that is a part of the aftermath of the trial and most of its media coverage. It flows better if these responses are made after the media and public responses. Having it in the Criminal trial section confuses things -- especially with the current title that is somewhat redundant to the Attorneys and jury heading -- because this section is not a part of the criminal trial. It's a part of what happened after the criminal trial. It's the same reason I don't feel that the Florida Department of Children and Families section belongs there. That is also an aftermath issue. Or rather an issue that is simply not a part of the criminal trial. Even if we renamed the "Defense, prosecution, and jury" heading to something that makes it clear that these responses took place after the trial (like "Post-trial commentary made by the defense, prosecution and jury," which is long because there isn't a short alternative that would stress it), I still wouldn't feel it belongs in the Criminal trial section. And having it in the Aftermath section, especially first, certainly doesn't obscure its importance in any way.

That said, I agree to separate Caylee's Law from memorials. And since we are okay with these two things, my alternate proposal and the individuality of Caylee's Law, I'll go ahead and implement these changes. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't use the title "Memorials" by itself because not only is that section also about tribute songs, it's currently more about tribute songs. So I titled it Memorials and tribute songs. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Division much better, less confusing. Memorials and tribute songs fine. I moved Florida Department of Children and Families cause agree it doesn't belong there. Still have some problems with media section but a low priority. Much discussed problems with presentation of evidence remain but soon enough will present oft promised alternative more logically consistent and in line with NPOV/BLP policies. CarolMooreDC 20:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the Florida Department of Children and Families section would be better as a paragraph in the Civil cases section? I just don't feel that it needs its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Civil cases, Florida Department of Children and Families administrative findings, Caylee's law are all separate legal issues. The civil cases are all directed at Casey, as is the Florida Department of Children and Families finding. So they should have the same status. Florida Department of Children and Families doesn't belong under family any more than civil cases do. (Unless more than one member of the family was involved.) CarolMooreDC 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But the Florida Department issue could be considered a civil case. I suppose it depends on one's definition of "civil case." I'm not sure what you mean by the latter part of your statement, because you placed the Florida Department issue as a subsection of the Anthony family; it sounds like you are saying that it should be placed in the Civil cases section, even though the initial part of your statement does not. Flyer22 (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another suggested outline - by CarolMooredc and discussion

Ok, here’s another suggested outline, after reading the above suggested outlines and comments, and after almost finishing a detailed (and referenced) timeline of the whole trial and all witnesses and evidence. (Note that I only put major sections in bold and lower subsections in italics (No, I'm not suggesting bulleting.) If not thus highlighted, my use of SlimVirgin’s suggestions and other suggested material can be sentences or paragraphs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Disappearance and search

Include more on initial and later searches which has been overlooked, media attention (including Nancy Grace briefly from point she first started hyping it), and brief fact of discovery date at end.)

2. Investigations and arrests

Because these are all mixed up together. First interviews, arrest, hiring of Jose Baez, subsequent arrests, plus info on Freedom of information legislation (Florida) and description of how constant release/dumps evidence and things like jail house tapes titulate media and enflame public per various WP:RS I’ve accumulated. (And we might want to reconsider that short paragraph on fraud plea since people will think we are covering something up by not mentioning it and it's relevant at the end.)

3. Indictment and evidence

List evidence available at time used to indict, plea of not guilty; discovery of the body details, as reported at the time; describe very briefly most important of the dozens of “dumps” of information, video, photos, etc. over the next couple years. [Added later if not clear: Details about evidence should be in a later section where defense challenges and testimony presented can be described, to make article truly NPOV.]

4. Trial of Casey Anthony

• Background (names of lawyers, judge, jury selection, where case heard, dates, etc)
• Opening arguments (with slight tweaks to current)
• Prosecution and defense (With introduction something like: Below are the main witnesses called by the prosecution and the evidence they presented. The defense challenged these both during the prosecution’s presentation of evidence and during their own defense presentation when they re-called prosecution witnesses or called their own witnesses. Perhaps here briefly describe hostility between Ashton/Baez, this laughing guy incident, etc?
  • Casey Anthony's behavior (Lies about job and Zanny the Nanny to friends/family, partying, tattoo etc, jail house tapes, testimony and questions about George and Lee molesting her, opinion of the grief expert)
  • Decomposition and chloroform in the car (including George and Cindy, cadaver dog searches, Dr. Vass tests, smell, stains, insects, etc.)
  • Computer searches (for chloroform and other dubious subjects)
  • Root banding (on one single hair removed from the trunk)
  • Crime scene evidence (including decomposition, duct tape, heart shaped sticker, blanket, clothing, insects, etc.)
  • Medical examiner’s ruling (identification of body and finding of homicide due to delay in reporting, fact the body was hidden, position of the duct tape; also link to hair in trunk from another witness)
  • Cindy Anthony (as defense witness talks about Caylee and the pool, Casey comment on drowning theory, denies telling private detectives to search where body eventually found [Lee Anthony and a detective say she told them she did], alleges she herself did chloroform searches which prosecutors dispute)
  • George Anthony (as defense witness denies affair, explains suicide attempt and note and buying a gun to threaten Casey’s friends)
  • Krystal Holloway (assuming 3 text WP:RS trump what's allegedly in video of the testimony, defense has her testify about George which Judge allowed to be used to weight George’s credibility)
  • Search teams and Roy Kronk (defense calls search teams and private investigators who did not find the body in the area it was later found; Kronk called and grilled about his actions in finding the body and his boasting about becoming rich and famous; his son called to testify to the latter also)
  • Burial of pets (defense calls Cindy, George and Lee testify buried in blankets, plastic bags, sometimes closed with duct tape)
• Closing arguments (Casey decision not to take the stand; make closing section shorter because currently too many prosecution and defense arguments replace actual witness testimony and evidence, which obviously are more important)
• Verdict and sentence
• Response to verdict
  • Defense, prosecution, jury
  • Family
  • Public
  • Media (note: because the media covered the above responses, does not mean they were "media related." However, media specifically inviting professional attorneys etc. to comment would be here. We'd have a shorter paragraph(s) on trial coverage introducing longer paragraphs on media responses, interviews, etc.)

5. Aftermath

• Civil litigation
• Caylee's Law
• Casey Anthony (estrangement from parents, jailhouse letters, seclusion and talk of therapy, alleged and/or eventual media offers/appearances, threats and security including regarding the probation issue)
• Anthony family (since Casey is estranged, much higher profile, and may yet come out with some startling testimony about her family, she does not get subsumed under them)
• Memorials (songs, discussed memorial where Caylee's body was found, etc.)

---

I prefer your outline, Carol, with three objections. If all those listings under the heading Prosecution and defense are subheadings, I disagree. I've gone over this above. NOT NEEDED. All of that can be covered under "Prosecution and defense" without being divided into unnecessary subheadings. Only divide when needed. Moving on: As I stated in my outline, there is no need to have the trial section titled "Trial of Casey Anthony." It is clear from the lead that it is Casey Anthony who is on trial. And, preferably, headings should be short, per WP:Manual of Style. The title "Criminal trial" or "Trial" should suffice. My third objection is to splitting up the responses to the trial and the verdict. That is "media" and "aftermath" and there is no reason that should be in the Criminal trial section or split up into all those subheadings. That should remain covered all under one heading -- Publicity and aftermath. It should be:

Publicity and aftermath

• Public and media reactions
• Defense, prosecution, and jury
• Civil litigation
• Caylee's Law
• The Anthony family (I'm not seeing how Casey Anthony can have her own section, separate from her family. For example, the information about Casey Anthony declining to see her mother? Which section would that go in? Estrangement from her parents has to do with both sections. But if you can give Casey Anthony her own section without it seemingly needing to be combined with her family, I'm fine with it being split.)
• Songs and memorials

The reason I have "Public and media reactions" first is because "Publicity and aftermath" is essentially an Impact section. Impact sections should first discuss the impact the topic had on society, and that section does just that...explaining what all the fuss was about. So I am not understanding why the "Defense, prosecution, jury" and "Family" sections should come before the "Public" and "Media" sections, no matter where they are placed. Summarizing the case's impact first makes more sense, and the public and media's reactions came before the defense, prosecution and jury's reactions, in any regard. I certainly don't understand why "Public" and "Media" should be divided when those two things go hand in hand. Again, we should avoid unnecessary headings and splits. I am okay with you implementing everything else, just not the three things I objected to. I would definitely tweak those things in the way I stated above above, if I saw them formatted in this article that way. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• First note in my outline I clarified that I think the “Indictment and Evidence” section should only very briefly describe or even just list the evidence, details being left to the trial section.
• "Prosecution and defense" can be paragraphs but if they turn into more than one paragraph each, they would need to be subheadings, and doubtless some would . Something to deal with when becomes relevant I guess.
• "Criminal trial" is fine.
• Obviously both SlimVirgin and I think Media and Aftermath in one section is just too much under one lumped up category. They are separate categories.
• The fact Casey's parents have now made it clear they aren't too interested in having her home makes estrangement even clearer. Also, having separate Casey section makes it easier to deal with things like the Jail house letters, which are just stuck in there, and the DCF report, which really does not belong under the Civil suits, plus obviously more things that will come up.
• The media is interested in covering what the prosecution, defense, jurors, etc. have to say. If they said nothing, the media would be spinning their wheels with their own opinions and interviewed experts. So while the media can create brouhaha, it has to start with the raw material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"...more than one paragraph each"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But we aren't supposed to give a subject a heading simply because it is comprised of more than one paragraph. That's why we don't have a bunch of needless subheadings now. If the Prosecution and defense section can be summarized in just seven or eight paragraphs, there is no need for division. And if there does become a need for division, I doubt it would take so many subheadings for that.

And while "media" and "aftermath" are separate categories, they largely overlap in this case. And those sections currently in the article now show that. It's not "too much" at all being lumped under the title Publicity and aftermath. It's not like it doesn't have subheadings distinguishing the topics. I feel that artificially dividing them would be confusing. Most Aftermath sections on Wikipedia have to do with reporting on how society and the media felt/feel about the subject. In fact, I don't know one Aftermath section on Wikipedia that doesn't deal with that. If you look at SlimVirgin's proposal again, there isn't a section titled Aftermath, but it does have the media and aftermath all under one heading. That part of the outline resembles mine more than it does yours. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with "Media" and "aftermath" being separate now, but only if they are kept at the bottom of the article, after the trial. The reason I'm okay with them being separate is because, even though they largely overlap, the media hoopla took place before, during and after the trial...and "the after" stuff doesn't have to be subsumed under "aftermath." What came after the media responses to the verdict can be considered "the true aftermath." So I'd propose:

Media (Everything currently in the Public and media reactions section would go there. As for what is at the top of the Publicity and aftermath section, all we need to keep is the stuff about George and Cindy Anthony, the evidence scrutiny, and George Anthony trying to kill himself. Maybe the media section should be divided into Initial coverage and Subsequent coverage, something like that, as I proposed earlier.)

Aftermath

• Defense, prosecution, and jury
• Civil litigation
• Caylee's Law
• The Anthony family (a Casey Anthony section can be split off from that if needed)
• Songs and memorials

Does that work for everyone? Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fewer sections on prosecution/defense

Here's a better presentation of prosecution/defense section with fewer subsections:

• Casey Anthony's behavior
• Evidence in the car: Decomposition and chloroform in the car and 'Root banding
• Computer searches including Cindy Anthony on her searches
• Crime scene evidence (including decomposition, duct tape, heart shaped sticker, blanket, clothing, insects, Medical examiner’s ruling, etc.) and all the challenges to that
• Defense theory Cindy talks about Caylee and the pool, Casey comment on drowning theory; Cindy and the psychic; George Anthony denies child abuse and affair, suicide attempt, gun, Krystal Holloway affair; sex allegations vs. Lee,
• Search teams and Roy Kronk

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why divide the "Evidence in the car" information away from the "Crime scene evidence" information? Because the evidence in the car is not considered crime scene evidence? I'm also not seeing why the "Computer searches" section would need its own section. Why does it work for you to split up the evidence into different sections, but not keeping it all under the title "Evidence"? I don't understand how these headings make it "more neutral." The word "evidence" is still in two of the headings. But if it's agreed to split this information up like this, I would prefer "Evidence in the car" be simplified to "Car evidence." As another example of how evidence can be formatted, there is the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Amanda Knox was found guilty, but a lot of people believe her to be innocent. It's like the opposite of this case in that regard.

For the "Search teams and Roy Kronk" part, are you saying that your "Disappearance and search" suggestion would then exclude information about the searches? It makes more sense to me that the searches are covered with the disappearance information. Or do you mean that both sections will be covering the disappearance, and that the Roy Kronk section will be different since it will be about what the prosecution and defense have to state about him? Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I'll have to think about it. For now just got the info in where I put it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been having old and new computer problems for three weeks so behind on all wikiediting. But recent edits continue to show how alleged evidence from early days of investigation just willy-nilly being thrown together with trial evidence in a way that does have some BLP implications, especially in case where defendant found innocent. So a restructure like that discussed above, to be worked out as we go, still necessary. Hopefully sooner rather than later. CarolMooreDC 12:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that we've been absence from editing for the same amount of time, since October 11th and are editing sparingly elsewhere. That will be changing a bit for me soon as well. While I still want a change in the outline, I'm not seeing how it makes any difference if the sources are from earlier in the case....when they report the same thing later in the case. The duct evidence that we argued over before, and that an editor and IPs recently "battled over" is the same evidence that was presented at trial. Duct having been around Caylee's mouth was trial evidence. It's not like this was an early inaccurate report. You provided sources that don't exactly say that the tape was over her mouth, but crime scene detectives have maintained that it was over her mouth. This was maintained in trial testimony as well. There have been no disputes about it having been placed over a part of her face. It's been a matter of sources differing slightly in where that tape was placed on her face. Most sources say "mouth" (and "nose"). It doesn't matter that most of those sources are from before the trial began, because this was also asserted at trial. I provided sources showing that. Thus, I am not seeing the BLP implications you do. We've been over this before. I also do not see how dividing the evidence section into subsections is going to help, but I am open to it...as long as we don't have too many subheadings and cut down on ones we don't need. I am willing to work with you and try to leave our past disparaging actions toward each other in the past, especially since it seems we are the only two main editors left at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The recent edits happen to be an example of the "mouth" issue but that hardly means it's the most important example of problems, including BLP related ones. It does seem to be mentioned frequently which may be why one editor recently decided to clean it up. I actually don't remember ever reading if anyone asked or said the tape was directly over skin or instead over plastic and cloth first, or if it was possible to tell. I'm sure if there was definitive evidence it had been attached to skin and not just found in the "mouth area" or "front of skull" or attached to(?) hair, the prosecution would have mentioned it a dozen times and she might even have been found guilty. Thus my skepticism of the importance of the issue and thinking that mentioning it so many times is WP:Undue.) CarolMooreDC 19:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I see no "mouth" issue when it comes to reporting this information. The recent edits regarding "mouth" came about because one editor misread the information and somehow didn't see that the source said "over the mouth." An IP, now blocked for being an open proxy, added sources from the lead to reaffirm "mouth." Two of the sources are what you personally call "trial sources." The information is not information that was inaccurately reported. Yes, it was reported early on, but plenty of things were reported early on in this case, and this is one of those things that was maintained throughout the case. So, again, no issue or BLP problem there.

That said, you may have a point about mentioning it "so many times." But we mention it in the lead, per WP:LEAD. We mention it in the Evidence section because it was used as evidence, and we mention it in the Opening statements and witness testimony, as well as the Closing arguments, sections because it's a part of testimony and closing arguments. So how can we not mention it in all these places?

Yes, there was no evidence that the tape was attached to skin. They couldn't get any fingerprint or skin evidence from it. Fontaine reasoned it was because given the months the tape and the remains had been outdoors and exposed to the elements, any oil or sweat from a person's fingertips would have long since deteriorated. The same could be said about skin. No DNA evidence is also why Dr. Spitz testified that he believed the duct tape found on Caylee's skull was placed there after the body decomposed, opining that if tape was placed on the skin, there should have been DNA left on it, and suggested that someone may have staged some of the crime scene photos. "The person who took this picture, the person who prepared this, put the hair there" he said. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still five mentions of something that is speculative with only one mention of the one thing that is a fact: that the family put duct tape around the opening of the bags they used to bury their pets. I also just noticed this and other exculpatory evidence regarding duct tape was mysterious removed at some point in last couple months and I put it back. Will have to watch more carefully since Anon IPs who hate Casey Anthony more than they care about wikipedia policies do keep editing... CarolMooreDC 21:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Duct being found somewhere on Caylee's skull is not speculative. Everyone who saw the remains states that it was there, even Dr. Spitz who believes it was staged. Unless we're going by the chief investigator for the medical examiner who "stated that the original placement of the duct tape was unclear." I'd have to read some sources to see if this person is also talking about duct tape being on the skull. As I said, it's just that sources have differed slightly about where the duct tape was placed on her face, altering between a general description of "on the skull" and a more specific one of "over the mouth," with more emphasis being placed on the latter by both the prosecution and defense. So, once more, I see no problem with this information being mentioned in the places that it is. What you restored, I'd seen that it was removed, but, when I saw you editing that section as you normally do, I thought you removed it. We could go through the edit history and see who removed it. I might do that later on. But I think the article was locked at that point, so it wasn't an IP who removed it. Of course I'll help keep a lookout for IP edits. This article has largely been without vandalism since its recent unprotection, though, which tells me that most people don't care as much for this case anymore. I'm sure that many will still hate Casey Anthony, but I'm saying that most of those people have moved away from this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion by ArnoldReinhold: Jury instructions

It seems to me there should be a section of the Judge's instructions to the jury. I found them on line here [1]. They are 26 pages long, but most of it is the standard State of Florida jury instructions [2] for each of the charges against her. Note that we quote Marcia Clark saying that the jury interpreted "reasonable doubt" too narrowly and that "The instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing even to lawyers," when in fact there was no instruction on circumstantial evidence. I would include the substance of the reasonable doubt section, the section on defendant not testifying and the elements for first degree murder.--agr (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with including information about this. We can either include it in the Attorneys and jury section...or break away the Jury section and include it there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with including jury instructions, no problem. If you don't have a scribd account and want to view the entire listing in text, then this page shows the instructions as well: Jury instructions. Also, that Marcia clark quote is long...she was talking more in general, but I see how it makes things sound like the jury was given instructions on circumstantial evidence. Perhaps that part of the quote could be excised so it isn't misleading? Furthermore, speaking of the First Degree murder, I think it should be mentioned somewhere about the jury deliberations that Baez tried to scare the jury by saying "This is a death penalty case" and by making another statement suggesting that 'the state wants to take her life' (I don't recall if that is the exact quote so I would need to find it again). At any rate, by making such statements, it implied that Casey would die if they found her guilty of any of the charges, which isn't necessarily true. Secondly, Ashton, in his many interviews after the trial, said that if the jury was thinking about the sentencing phase (i.e. having to face the decision of sentencing Casey to death) during the guilt (or deliberation) phase of the trial, then "the jury wasn't following the law." I will see if I can find a source for his statement. Edit - Update: I found it, it is here: CNN Interview. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it - i.e. mentioning the instructions; of course a balanced and accurate view should be presented using Secondary sources. Also, as I noted below, final written jury instructions are here. I don't feel like seeing how they differ from the initials ones, but just FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Clark was being general about the instruction on circumstantial evidence, and that it was basically her lead-in (a lead-in comparison). Because what she really zeroed in on was instruction on reasonable doubt, which the jury was instructed on. I tweaked the wording to reflect that. Reasonable doubt is usually caused by circumstantial evidence, and Clark is explaining how it's hard enough to instruct the jury on such evidence. But to instruct them on reasonable doubt? That's a whole 'nother level of difficulty, is basically what she's saying. Anyway, I excised the part about circumstantial evidence. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course once the article actually includes all the challenges to the prosecution's case that so firmly established reasonable doubt, perhaps such long comments about it will seem irrelevant. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"So firmly established reasonable doubt" is obviously an opinion, because various experienced lawyers (such as Marcia Clark, who knows what she's talking about better than any of us), as well as the general public, do not believe that there was "firm reasonable doubt." If there had been, I doubt that almost all of the jury would be so convinced that Casey Anthony is not innocent in the death of her child. That is why such quotes are not irrelevant in a section about public response to the case. It's also not "long." Not before, and not since it's been downsized. It's not like it needed a blockquote. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Other problems and discussion

Another problem is that the article uses a mishmash of sources of differing quality with no in-text attribution, so the reader can't follow who said what, and can't know which source to rely on. Example of a recent edit:

A strand of hair was recovered from the trunk of Casey's car which was microscopically similiar to hair taken from Caylee Anthony's hairbrush. The recovered strand showed "root-banding" which was consistent with hair from a dead body.

The source is Karen Korsberg Lowe of the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, who testified for the prosecution at the trial. That source should be attributed clearly in text, so that we don't state this material in Wikipedia's voice, and we should ideally link directly to video of her testimony, giving a timestamp so readers can find it easily. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

There has been a debate about how many references to use. I say use the highest quality one or two that most fully refs the point. Others seem to think it's fine to have three or four refs, two or three of which may only mention briefly the issue in question.

Also, of course, there is the problem of people ignoring Wikipedia:Citing_sources and continuing to reference with only Raw URLs -- even removing properly cited WP:RS references to put in their own preferred raw URL. I've tagged the reference section about this. Frustrating. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That is untrue. Please show where your sources were removed. Not by me. By the way, didn't you even read what Slim Virgin said? She mentions a video source in the abovementioned as the ideal source with the proper timestamp. Mugginsx (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there has been much debate over references. I am the one who re-added the hair evidence, which presumably was removed because of the very same debate over references. I asked about this above in the previous discussion on references and the re-wording of Morales' testimony, but there was no response and now there is another section about this. Both references above essentially state the same things. I chose to place the one that seemed most clear about "microscopically similar" after that wording in the statement. If you want to include both references at the end of both sentences then feel free to re-order the references in those statements. Also, yes it is Lowe who testified in court. I did not attribute those statements to a person because that would be more appropriate in the witness testimony section. Right now there seems to be a debate on whether or not there will even be an Evidence section or if it will be combined with the Witness Testimony section so I chose to re-add the hair evidence to the section it was removed from, which was the Evidence section. If you want to move it to the Testimony section with attribution to Lowe, then feel free to do so. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 16:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The importance of in-text attribution is to signal to the reader who is making the claim. Wikipedia doesn't know that a strand of hair was recovered from the trunk that was microscopically similar to hair taken from Caylee Anthony's hairbrush. Or that the recovered strand showed "root-banding" consistent with hair from a dead body. Wikipedia wasn't there, and Wikipedia didn't do those tests. And given that virtually everything about the evidence is contested in some way, it's important always to make clear that it was A who said X, and B who said Y. And then link to just one high-quality source so there isn't a proliferation of sources after each sentence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[insert to your insert] As I stated, then feel free to make the move and accompanying attribution. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 04:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere I just now attempted to add the information to what was presently there according to slimvirgin's suggestions. If I have done it incorrectly, (I do not know how to do in-line citations apparently) please correct it as you see fit. I have never previously touched the information until today. You will note that she approves of video testimony and refers to it in her example as the "ideally link... with timestamp" What, I think, you and I have been fighting for all along. Please correct me if I am wrong there.

Also would you please comment two sections above this one to the discussion of Flyers proposed outline where I agree with slimvirgin on the moving of the evidence into the trial section? I would like to know you opinions on all these maters if you do nnot mind giving them. Mugginsx (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at it but I haven't decided which one I like best. However, yes, I will let you know. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 17:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, to give my initial response, I liked the idea much earlier of a separate evidence section (bullets) and then in the testimony section, both sides of the same piece of evidence could be grouped together. That is, one paragraph on the hair evidence, for example, in which we state "the Prosecution called Lowe and said it was from a dead person, the Defense questioned Lowe and challenged the science". However, that idea of using bullets to list evidence was not consensus, so it was abandoned. If we keep the evidence section separate, it opens the door for people to question if it should be listed to start, which is a bad idea. So I don't know. I'm torn. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 18:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that you, slimvirgin and I agree. Both sections are, for the most part, repeating the same evidence. What it does not repeat, as you said, could be assimilated together. Maybe we could have a vote? Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, I already stated above that I am okay with having "Prosecution" and "defense" sections instead, as long as they are not divided into unnecessary subheadings. I prefer that the sections be combined, as Carol suggested above, without all those subheadings. You two should weigh in on Carol's proposal as well, so that we can go ahead and gain some consensus for a redesign.

As for references, I have complained about inconsistent referencing more than once. I prefer to use reference templates, and it seems ThisLaughingGuyRightHere does as well, while you and Carol do not. Carol doesn't use templates. And you use bare urls without any other information. Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against adding to the number of citation templates. On an article with as many references as this, the templates slow down load time considerably. It's already slow to load because of them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer: I was talking about video referencing and in-line citations, not inconsistent referencing. If I am doing that, it is the first I knew that it was termed "inconsistent referencing". I will look at Carol's proposal when I am ready. That was one of the reasons I changed the section headings, so I could disquish more easily whose outline was whose and how they appeal to me. You are starting to sound like you are in charge of this article and I don't much care for two editors doing that anymore than one.

Also, I was talking about assimilating the "Evidence section" into the "Trial" section. You are talking about deliniating the Prosecutor and Defense Section in (I guess, the Trial section and maintaining the Evidence section or am I mistaken? Mugginsx (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think both of you are doing a fantastic job. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 19:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, I was not trying to attack you. This discussion is also about inconsistent referencing, which is why Carol tagged the references section (bare urls are advised against, as her tag shows) and brought it up in this section. I was simply pointing out the different ways in which the article uses different referencing styles (pointing out that you are not the only one). I pointed out before that Wikipedia prefers consistent reference formatting, which is why they have tags for types of inconsistent formatting and GA and FA reviews often demand consistency. Book references are of course going to be cited differently than news references, for example, but as long as you are using reference templates for all that -- that is consistency. And, no, I was not talking about keeping the Evidence section, because I was saying I am okay with SlimVirgin or Carol's proposal in regards to the evidence...without all the subheadings.

I also was not trying to order you or ThisLaughingGuyRightHere to look at Carol's outline. If you feel that I am WP:OWNING this article, I will leave. I am tired of all the BLP violation debates, arguments and repeated discussions at this talk page anyway. I have no problem leaving it all behind, scratching this article off my significantly expanded list, and never looking at it again. It takes up too much of my time, and this is one Wikipedia article attachment I can break myself of. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree there has been so much WP:Rehash going on, but I think the article would suffer greatly if you were to basically walk away from it. Let's not self-destruct. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 19:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Instead of leaving why don't you just read that outline of hers again and just vote. You were the one that convinced me to stay on the article when I wanted to leave. I promised to try to help you get GA status but it has to be a truthful article to do that. I am sorry I did that. Do you think I like this arguing? I'm not well either Flyer. I have been there to support you almost every time you brought something up except on the BLP issues and CarolMooredc's outline proposal but I obeyed the consensus (informal though it was) and didn't hold a grudge. I changed my mind on the article size when you pointed the Wiki regs on it. I would hope you would at least show me the same courtesy and just read her comments along with her proposal and vote up or down as you asked me to do. I can live with the Evidence section in your proposal if you feel so strongly about it and ThisLaughingGuyRightHere also agrees, but I cannot live with CarolMooredc slanted outline proposal. Then, if you are ready, we can vote on yours. It is below. If I have not presented it correctly than please change it by all means to fit Wiki critera for consensus vote. Mugginsx (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, I know what Carol's proposal says. I don't agree with all of it. As I stated above, I definitely disagree with all her unneeded subheadings, but I'll comment on that below. You did support me on some BLP issues, just not on what you perceived (maybe still perceive even with the changes) as a BLP issue in the Defense, prosecution, and jury section. But I'm just pointing out that you did support me on some BLP aspects. I'm not trying to get this article to GA status yet, so I'm not sure when you made that promise, but I get the drift of what you are saying. I'll stick it out for some time longer, but I am ready to leave this article for good...like others have done. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, I'm not sure what you have against subheads. The article has to be split into bite-sized chunks for the sake of the writers and readers. Each chunk should explain the details and significance of the material (e.g. duct tape, Kronk, chloroform searches), from the prosecution and defence perspective, so the reader doesn't have to hunt for both views. It will be much easier to read and write that way.

Bear in mind that very few readers read Wikipedia articles from top to bottom. They read the lead, they look at images and cutlines, they scan the subheads for something that interests them, and they glance at the references and further reading sections. So we have to supply those subheads, or else we lose them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to prefer them myself for reasons mentioned above, except when the relevant information is just a paragraph each. However, I'm sure some evidence categories would be more than one paragraph, necessitating sectioning. I myself also don't mind bullets but I know others do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if the subsections are short to start with, they can be developed, and I think it'll be easier to develop them when the article is divided into smaller chunks. Also, the initial structure needn't be the end structure. It could be that, having used the subhead structure to write the article, it would look better at the end without so many, in which case they can be removed and sections merged. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more - "bite size", not "family size". Make it inviting, not overwhelming. I can't tell you how many articles I've tried to read but just gave up on out of sheer frustration with poor structure and editorial indifference to the people who will be reading them. The effect is akin to what they say in WP:WallofText about noticeboard posts- "The more you type, the less people will read". Pascal's famous quote, "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter", also comes to mind. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear to two comments above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't have a problem with subheadings. I have a problem with unneeded subheadings and their making articles look longer than they really are. You say "The article has to be split into bite-sized chunks for the sake of the writers and readers," but I have not heard that logic ever used on Wikipedia before now. Nor have I seen it practiced throughout a Wikipedia article, other than a Wikipedia article that doesn't have much in it to begin with. As I told Shirtwaist above, at least with your articles, "though those sections typically only consist of three paragraphs, there is enough information filling them, whereas for the arbitrary subsection headings [you] suggested for this article, there is not. We shouldn't include section breaks for the hell of it. There should be a valid reason for doing so. And, no, 'our readers are too attention span-challenged to read past three paragraphs' is not a valid reason. To suggest that the reader cannot at least digest six paragraphs before moving on just because your attention span is different than others is not a valid reason to do so." And saying "so we have to supply those subheads, or else we lose them"? Well, that loses me. Makes no sense to me at all. I highly doubt that if I brought in the editors from WP:Manual of Style, editors I watch debate over the best Wikipedia formatting every day, that they would agree with "the more subheadings, the better." All that does is create very long articles, often earning the article a "too long" tag, or articles that look very long. I have seen this time and time again. But if you can make this article work with a bunch of needless subheadings, which you obviously can, then more power to you. Looking at the talk page and edit history, I can leave the article in your hands and move on. I don't mind, because I definitely needed a reason to free myself of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone here has seen the "too long" tag. I have. The argument is usually the other way around -- too many subheadings makes the article more difficult to navigate through. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It would suck hardcore if you left. I agree, we shouldn't present a skin-and-bones article so we can keep a lazy reader's attention, and I don't know why we should assume the reader is lazy...I've seen several comments that readers of WP are intellectuals and such. So yeah, if you only like "easy reads" then go buy a children's book and get off WP. As for too many subheadings, I kind of agree although I don't see a way around it if we are going to combine evidence and witness testimony. We could make those subheadings simply be paragraphs and each paragraph discusses Defense and Prosecution about Evidence X. I'm not sure what you mean about making it work based on the rest of the talk page...but yeah, it would suck if you left. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere, we may need extra headings in some instances, but the keyword is "need." I'm talking about the needless ones, such as having sections consist of only three paragraphs before the next subheading pops up. Just look at how WP:Manual of Style is formatted with all those headings and subheadings for sections made up of only 1-3 paragraphs, and small paragraphs at that. The Manual of Style looks much longer than it really is and is difficult to navigate through. That's what I'm talking about. Can you imagine if this article looked close to like that with the many headings and subbeadings? And despite the Manual of Style looking like that, most editors at that talk page have argued against presenting articles like that. I cannot tell you how many articles I have seen tagged as "too long" simply because they looked "too long" from the table of contents. But I don't even have a problem with actual "too long" articles, like Michael Jackson, as long as they are easy to navigate through. An article that isn't too long but looks it? I disagree with that.

I didn't say that SlimVirgin can make it work based on the rest of this talk page. I was speaking of the fact that SlimVirgin's articles look longer than they are, having been divided into small subsections, and it has worked for SlimVirgin...since two of those articles given as examples above are featured (not sure if they reached featured that way, but they seem to have). My saying "Looking at the talk page and edit history, I can leave the article in your hands and move on." was me saying that SlimVirgin has support for his "many subheadings" and has started editing parts of the article, and that my adequate summary of the public and media reactions will likely be dismantled in a way that I disagree with. I therefore have no reason to continue editing this article, since I disagree with all of that. SlimVirgin has experience in elevating articles to higher levels, as do I, and I am fine with leaving SlimVirgin to do just that with this one. Overall, I already summed up my feelings about editing at this article (the BLP violation debates, arguments, repeated discussions, all of it taking up much of my time). I don't need support or kind comments to continue editing it. I've long been at the end of my rope in regard to it. So if I'm leaving it in experienced hands, someone like SlimVirgin, who doesn't seem to have bias about this case, I am fine with that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you leave then there's no point for me to stay. I guess I will be leaving with you...ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 08:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No. You can't do that. There has to be some neutrality going on here, and, also, you and Mugginsx are more familiar with aspects of the case than outside editors coming in to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a strong opinion about things so if you say I'm neutral then my edits haven't been aggressive enough. My interest is waning anyway, I may just stop and watch the trial from the beginning again. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 21:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, neutrality in presenting what you feel very strongly about. For example, it's clear that Carol feels very passionately about presenting the defense's side and mostly focuses on the defense's side. On that note, I have seen you and Mugginsx strive to keep this balanced out with the prosecution's side. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If the article mostly presents evidence from the prosecution, but very few of the actual challenges by the defense, and if people who point out such factoids don't stay as long in the article as those who don't seem to concerned with the defense challenges, obviously the one person who is concerned and sticks with article may seem passionate. As opposed to merely doing their job as a wikipedia editor trying to make an article NPOV and BLP compliant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I see challenges to the prosecution all over the place...with the most recent addition and with indications here and there made in different sections on this talk page that even more such edits are coming, it's a wonder if there will be mention of the prosecution at all when this is settled. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 04:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What is needed is a comprehensive presentation of prosecution and defense cases, per my suggested revised summary (which needs more revising) Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony#Fewer_sections_on_prosecution.2Fdefense. That will make it less likely there is a constant tugging back and forth about who gets most attention. The long lead, the divided evidence vs. witnesses sections and the overly long "closing" section aggravates the situation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, I don't know who you are trying to fool. But everyone here knows that you are only interested in the defense's case. You emphasize it, etc., etc., etc., and sometimes remove references attributed to the prosecution's without adding back "correct" references in the place of those you removed. This is obviously because you are hoping such information looks dubious and someone will come along and remove it. Because if any defense statement was left hanging, you'd source it. So cut the bull. And, for the last time, there is no evidence from the defense. They didn't provide a damn stitch of evidence to support their claims. Bringing on a woman to say what George stated is not evidence. And the only one aggravated by "the long lead, the divided evidence vs. witnesses sections and the overly long 'closing' section" is you. SlimVirgin did well with the lead, as an article of this length should consist of three or four paragraphs, per WP:LEAD. Four at the most. I also already stated that there is nothing "overly long" about the Closing arguments section. But you and I rarely agree anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This kind of hostile response is unnecessary and yet the pattern I've experience from the beginning. I could make a list of diffs as long as my arm.

Anyway, the defense challenged evidence and it brought witnesses (mostly recalled prosecution witnesses) who backed up their claims. Example: Cindy Anthony saying the family used duct tape to close up plastic bags they buried their pets in. I don't see you challenging lists of evidence when I present them. And so far duct tape is only one I've thoroughly analyzed here. I've wasted too much time arguing here when should have finished off my analysis and presented whole hog. Carolmooredc 66.44.6.37 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You call it a hostile and unnecessary response. I call it a needed response, for the reasons stated in it. "I could make a list of diffs as long as my arm" to support it.

Anyway, the defense challenging evidence by using the prosecution's witnesses and bringing in their own witnesses/experts is still not "defense evidence." Why would I "challenge lists of evidence when [you] present them"? You, just like the defense, don't present any evidence, that George sexually abused Casey, made an accident look like murder or that he had an affair with Krystal Holloway. All you present are claims. And those are challenged by me and other editors every time we object to the way you add/try to add such claims to the article...and every time we strive to balance it out. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Prosecution burden vs. defense challenge

The above (Flyer22 16:17, 27 August 2011) response displays some confusion on this topic. The prosecution bears the burden of proof in presenting evidence to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. The defense burden is merely to raise that reasonable doubt, not to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

So when the defense says: Caylee drowned, Casey didn’t report it because she was mind-f***d by her father, and that it’s suspicious Kronk found the body after two search teams did not - - they do not have to prove the child drowned, George was a child rapist, or Kronk moved the body around. All they have to do is come up witht enough suggestive testimony (including testimony about evidence) that these things MIGHT have been the case to raise a reasonable doubt. THAT is what they did very successfully. It’s a fascinating story that should be told accurately in wikipedia, without prejudice. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No confusion on my part. It also echoes what Mugginsx, who has stated to having extensive knowledge of the law, says: What the lawyers say is not evidence. I did not say the defense has to prove anything, though most people (including experts in this field) believe that they should usually prove something to get their clients off. I said that the defense had no evidence, and there is no "defense evidence." You are the one who keeps displaying confusion, saying "defense evidence" and having extensively complained about the Evidence section not including "defense evidence." Besides that, no matter what you state, the defense did not create reasonable doubt that made jurors think "Wait, Casey Anthony is innocent and it was George who hid the body." The jurors that have spoken out thus far, minus the alternate juror, have been clear in their belief that Casey Anthony is guilty or played some other intentional role in the disappearance of her daughter. Having a suspicion of George Anthony, suspicion they didn't even clarify, does not negate that. And aren't you funny, saying "It’s a fascinating story that should be told accurately in wikipedia, without prejudice." The only prejudice that continues to be displayed at this article is what I stated of your editing right above. More than one person has complained about your bias. That should tell you something. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer is correct. Defense could stay quite in every trial if they wanted to. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No one's disputing that. I am just clarifying that in cases like this one where the defense has an alternate scenario, the defense does not have to prove accusations like the child drowned or Casey was sexually molested. It only has to raise alternate scenarios and inject enough evidence to create reasonable doubt that the prosecution story is the only possible scenario. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. The defense does not have to even know what happened, obviously. A defendant doesn't necessarily know what happened or who was responsible. They have no burden to explain what happened. If the defense knows or believes a different scenario happened than the one put forth by the prosecution they will say so of course, but they have no obligation to prove it. It's the prosecution who have to know they have enough evidence to prove a person's guilt before bringing charges to trial, or else they need to wait until they do have the evidence/proof. I didn't hear the jury say the things you're claiming they did, Flyer. I heard some of them say they weren't sure if they believed the drowning scenario but that there just had not been any evidence that proved the charges against the defendant. Urthcreature (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make a claim. I said the jurors, minus the alternate juror, have been clear in their belief that Casey Anthony is guilty or played some other intentional role in the disappearance of her daughter. Their comments about that are in this article, and those comments demonstrate that they do not believe Casey Anthony to be innocent. It generally comes down to them believing that she's guilty but that they did not have enough evidence to convict her of that, or believing that she may have accidentally killed her daughter but not having enough evidence to prove that either. They aren't clear what they are suspicious of with regard to George, but they don't at all imply that they feel he killed Caylee or played a part in hiding her body. As for everything else you stated, this was already settled. There was no confusion on my part. My argument was about the fact that what lawyers say is not evidence unless they have evidence backing what they say, as stated above. With the way this section is cut off from the section right above, perhaps you could not see that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrections

It is stated a couple of times in the article that "it was eventually determined that a woman named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez did in fact exist, but that she had never met Casey or Caylee Anthony " etc. The woman questioned by police was not named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez but Zenaida C. Gonzalez. She was questioned because a visitor card in the Sawgrass Apartments records indicated she had been there on June 17, 2008, at the apartment complex where Casey Anthony said she had dropped off Caylee with an alleged babysitter named Zenaida "Zanny" Fernandez-Gonzalez. (Sources: the Sawgrass apartments visitor card released in evidence, the police interviews with Casey Anthony, July 2008.) (There were/are actually other Zenaida and Zanny Gonzalezes in the area, this woman was not the only one by that name.) Even the houses behind which Caylee's remains were found later, at the end of Hopespring Drive, had an owner and a tenant named Gonzales and Zenaida. Anyway, we just need to correct the woman's name in the article.Urthcreature (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the first thing I have heard about the name, but you are correct per page 50 of this Orlando Sentinel PDF of a lot of documents. Plus a WESH article mentioning this at here. Obviously it should be worked into the article and I'll do so soon after I finish replying here. CarolMooreDC 21:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(Thanks if anyone knows how to make the correction. I don't know a "published news/media story" to use as a citation for that, just the evidence documents themselves. The last time I was here we weren't allowed to cite/link to the actual evidence documents as sources, it had to be news stories or other published stories about the case, which unfortunately were mostly not very accurate or complete in regard to the evidence.) TY :) This article is vastly improved since the last time I saw it and finally contains a lot of the facts from the case. But I do agree with those who have posted that in some parts the article still presents some prosecution theory as if it were fact, rather than a neutral presentation of the prosecution and defense evidence. Important defense evidence is lacking in some areas of the article. The article still has some errors and omissions which were characteristic of the media coverage of the case. But so much better than it was. TYUrthcreature (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's always good to check policy yourself rather than believing what other editors say. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes policy has shifted since they last looked, sometimes they are emphasizing part of policy and ignoring the rest, and sometimes they are just plain full of it.

People opposed to using any particular material, even if they are in a great majority on a particular article talk page, cannot ignore or override policy or just remove things they don't like that are against their "POV." When one believes this is happening, there are a number of notice boards on different policies that you can go to for other opinions from the wider community. See and learn WP:Dispute resolution. This is particularly important in biographies of living people. See WP:BLPN.

According to my view from past studies of the matter, primary sources are only to be used as a) a backup reference to a secondary source or b) when no other source can be found and the information is important (especially in biographies). But it's always good to check for yourself. I would if I was challenged in that view :-) CarolMooreDC 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The hair banding / post mortem root banding--

It was stated in the article that hair found in the car trunk was consistent with post-mortem root banding. First, the source of the comment should be identified (the FBI analyst). In the FBI lab emails in evidence an analyst said she thought one hair had characteristics consistent with postmortem root banding, and could they find any more hairs for her to see if she could strengthen the argument that it was post-mortem hair banding (there weren't any other hairs with this darkening). On the stand the FBI hair analysts would not go as far as to say the one hair had post-mortem root banding. They stated very carefully that the darkened band on the hair appeared to be consistent with the appearance of post-mortem root banding, but that they could not definitively say the hair had post-mortem banding, or that the hair had come from a dead body. The defense presented evidence that in a practice exercise on post-mortem root banding carried out within the FBI, these same FBI analysts had misidentified some hairs that did not come from dead bodies as having "post-mortem root banding". The FBI hair analysts themselves also conceded on the stand that there are no actual scientific standards for the analysis of what they refer to as "post mortem root banding", that by saying a hair appears to have characteristics consistent with the appearance of post-mortem root banding they are referring only to anecdotal and subjective standards based on having seen darkened bands on hairs from dead bodies, but that they can't rule out the possibility of other factors that could cause the same banding on hair. The media repeated for three years that a hair in the trunk had death banding on it and therefore had come from a dead body, but the FBI analysts themselves didn't go that far.Urthcreature (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to ask you exactly what "defense evidence" are you talking about. But then you presented an example -- the hair-branding. Yes, what you stated should be in the article if a reliable source backs it.

On a side note: What "prosecution theory" is presented as fact? Anything claimed by the prosecution in this article is attributed to the prosecution or FBI, etc., backing their claims. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A lot of material that has not made it yet here is in Timeline of Casey Anthony case. I can't remember the details on the above right now, but obviously it should be as accurate as possible. If you have questions about the proper way to change things, you can always propose your changes here and get feedback. CarolMooreDC 23:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

Time for Casey to have her own article. The argument that she is not notable apart from Caylee's death is flawed. For example, Seung-Hui Cho has his own article although his notoriety is derived from the Virginia Tech massacre, which is detailed in its own article. Casey's article should focus and her background and biographical information, which is not covered here. prefix:Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony

So write it already. But before you do, see Talk:Casey Anthony. And add comments to the bottom of the page. And sign your comments, please. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Our policy WP:BLP1E is not to have a separate article for a living person notable for only one event. Note that Seung-Hui Cho is not covered by the policy as he is no longer alive. There are exceptions, but this has been discussed at length in the past and there has been no consensus for making an exception for Ms. Anthony. If anything, her efforts to maintian her privacy since the trial suggest the policy be followed.--agr (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Casey Anthony having her own article. Her notability, although forever tied to the death if her daughter, is beginning to stem further than this one event. She is constantly in the media, even to the extent of what she is wearing. Seems like a no brainier. JOJ ^Hutton 22:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What she is wearing (and information such as that), while perhaps deemed newsworthy by tabloid journalists, is not encyclopedic data.  Chickenmonkey  23:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fact is, that her notability and media coverage has gone beyond WP:BLP1E.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a fact, but I am not averse to the revisiting of this discussion.  Chickenmonkey  00:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The facts are that she is still in the news. Far beyond the argument of WP:BLP1E.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, she is "in the news", but being "in the news" is not the prerequisite for a Wikipedia article. Plenty of "newsworthy" things are not documented on Wikipedia. If we made an article on her, what would it encompass, outside of the one event? Her making an internet video? Her wearing a hat? These are things that news organizations can opt to cover, because a) They sell and b) The news organizations have a 24-hour news cycle to fill. Wikipedia is not a news organization; it is an encyclopedia. In that capacity, Wikipedia does not document individuals just because they may be "in the news".  Chickenmonkey  01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I do Support a separate Casey Anthony article as her notability has reached beyond the July non-murder conviction of her.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No picture of the victim?

Is there a reason why no picture of Caylee Anthony is in this article? We have one of her mother, so it is strange that the article is missing it, when It is in fact about her. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Mugshots taken in Florida are in the public domain which explains the pic of the mother. For Caylee, there would need to be a Fair use photo unless someone has their own private photos that they would be willing to upload at Commons and license freely. The fair use photo is a possibility.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Fair Use would be the way to go here; there is obviously a need for it, and free equivalents are going to be hard to come by. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favor of a photo, and there was one earlier in 2011. However, there was a huge stink thrown over it, as some very vocal editors felt it was "disrespectful" to show a photo of the victim, for reasons I never completely understood. I think the present photo of the memorial was a compromise. The photo that was originally added to the article of Caylee Anthony was the one released by the sheriff and other authorities and is considered public domain. For more information, I suggest looking through the Archives. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I only came across one editor who felt "It's just wrong" to display a picture of Caylee, based on some type of personal belief. See Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 3#Photo. Others stated that we don't need an image of Caylee to understand this subject, and that this is why a non-free image doesn't pass the guidelines. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 8#File:Caylee anthony.jpg, where the deletion debate happened. Also see Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 5#Images for the aftermath. The current image is the result of all that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing white woman syndrome

Explain, how exactly is that relevant to the case? 205.222.248.19 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Search the term in the archives for an explanation. CarolMooreDC 17:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Time to create Casey Anthony article!

Time to create Casey Anthony article! I know it sucks for you hate spewing fanatics. But she became noteworthy celebrity 65.35.249.125 (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What, another one of you guys? Same advice applies: If you want an article, then you can write it. Nothing's stopping you if you think there's notability. But it would still behoove you to look back through the archives at previous discussions. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What, another one of you guys?, Talk about not assuming good faith.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a denial of good faith. I'm just a "hate spewing fanatic" expressing my surprise at the latest Anon IP who demands an article should be written without volunteering any effort, or first skimming the archives to see what discussion has happened in the past. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course you don't see it, because you did it. If you saw that what you said was not assuming good faith, then I'm sure you wouldn't have said it. Fact is that no one is demanding an article be created, only suggesting. If more and more editors/ips keep making the same suggestion over and over again, thenperhaps there is merit to the suggestion.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Then we have a difference of opinion. I read this: Time to create Casey Anthony article! I know it sucks... as a rudely put demand. My reply is casual, brusque, and to the sensitive, perhaps rude, but on the issue of good faith, I maintain it's quite neutral. I'm sure the AnonIP sincerely feels an article is justified. Previous suggestions also had the tone of demands. And my advice has been the same. THIS AnonIP is no stranger to Wikipedia, so what's stopping him/her from creating the article that (s)he suggests from the "hate-spewing fanatic"-editors at large? What's your reply to the AnonIP? Boneyard90 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a breach of good faith. The IP's initial dig was unnecessary and caustic. Boneyard's comment follows WP:DUCK.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I will follow your suggestion and just create the page myself.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Before you do that, see Talk:Casey Anthony. The lengthy discussion about it there is what has been keeping editors from creating the article. This was also recently addressed in the #Suggestions section above, which is one reason why I can understand Boneyard's "What, another one of you guys?" response. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it has been a half year since we had the last major discussion over this.[3] Maybe it's time to revisit the issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussion about it is at Talk:Casey Anthony. A new discussion about it can be started there as well. Relevant WikiProjects should be contacted to weigh in on the new discussion and we can have a section (maybe this one) and/or a banner here redirecting people to that new discussion. I understand that this is the more watched talk page, but that doesn't have to hinder the ability for a hefty discussion about this to take place at Talk:Casey Anthony, just like it didn't last time. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

With all due respect, I'm confused that this article reminds editors to adhere to the policy for Bios of Living People, and is also categorized as "biography articles of living people". It gets further complicated by the fact that the article is titled "Death of Caylee Anthony" (indicating that the primary focus of the article is an EVENT). Was this article initially started before the body was found? My guess is that this article has been a work-in-progress since the disappearance was first reported in the media, and has been categorized and labeled this way ever since...not sure, though. Can someone please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommygchild (talk • contribs) 03:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look closely at the reminder, it says "must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons." (emphasis added). Further, if you take a closer look at the category biography articles of living people, you'll find similar articles included with actual BLPs. Hope that helps... AzureCitizen (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Casey Anthony

Casey Anthony is a very highly notable individual, and should have her own page. This page should be kept, however. She is a nationally known person, and her trial was covered nationwide. She is more known than many actors/singers that have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.1.35 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do an archive search for discussions on the subject. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, please see Talk:Casey Anthony. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Boneyard believes that anyone who wishes to create the article should just be bold and create it. So I would support the creation of the article as well, if you wish to create it. JOJ ^Hutton 16:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, people notable for one event who have an article about that event usually do NOT get articles, per policy. She hasn't done anything notable since. If she writes a book and that gets a lot of publicity or, for example, gets a lot of attention for starting a nonprofit somehow relevant to her experiences, or somehow becomes notable in some other field, it would be justifiable under wikipedia policies. At this point, not really. This article itself still needs work which I'm afraid I haven't been able to do to make it more NPOV. I did put a lot of that kind of work into Timeline_of_the_Casey_Anthony_case and contrast and compare. CarolMooreDC 19:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP1E: WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. Hardly a low profile individual. That argument doesn't hold water and is tiring to hear the broken record every single time. I have a mind to call Boneyards bluff and create the article myself. There never has been an "AFD" on this article, so its creation is still plausible.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted links to WP:Who is a low profile individual, which says "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Until Ms. Anthony actively seeks out media attention she is covered by BLP1E. Note that deliberately violating BLP has serious consequences. Consider yourself warned.--agr (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Warned? LOL, BTW. High Profile: As of the writing (or review/editing) of the article (or as of the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities. Or was engaged in high-profile activity as a lifelong endeavor, but is now (or at the end was) attempting to be low-profile. Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event.

The key phrase in what you just quoted is "as described above." --agr (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Key phrase is or for a major role in one major event. That makes the person "High Profile"--JOJ ^Hutton 23:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Was it not decided that Casey Anthony was not sufficiently notable enough to warrant an article? I believe it was, and what exactly has she done, since then, that would now warrant Wikipedia creating an article to chronicle her life? There is nothing about Casey Anthony, outside of the death of her daughter and subsequent media circus surrounding it, which makes her notable. Nothing. Not a single thing. What would an article about Casey Anthony entail? Only things about the death of her daughter. Nothing else, because that is all of which makes her notable, at all. This is precisely why we have BLP1E: to keep otherwise non-notable, single event people from having their lives chronicled on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and therefore has no need to keep track of Casey Anthony, unless she decides to do something else to become notable outside of this single event.  Chickenmonkey  02:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Anybody else notice that all these discussions on a new article always start with a drive-by comment from an AnonIP who then fails to follow up or participate in anyway? Boneyard90 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we should not have an article on Casey Anthony. After all, we have an article about Anders Behring Breivik who is also a WP:BLP1E. Can one of the editors who's against creating an article on Casey Anthony please put your money where your mouth is and nominate Breivik for deletion? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to discuss Anders Behring Breivik, it is better to do so at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. The existence of that article does not predicate the existence of an article on Casey Anthony. The decision to create an article on Anders Behring Breivik was probably made somewhere else (not here), and I assume the editors who made that decision did so with good reason. The issue at hand here, however, is whether Casey Anthony is sufficiently notable to warrant an article dedicated to her; she is not.  Chickenmonkey  04:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not what she's done or not done since then, but wether or not she has continually been the subject of significant media coverage. I believe she has. The sources determine notability, not a few random editors who obviously Dont like the subject. JOJ ^Hutton 09:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Chickenmonkey: I'm sorry, but I can't take your argument seriously if you refuse to apply it universally. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@JOJ: This is not a case of "I Don't Like It"; this is a case of "Just because she's in the news does not mean Wikipedia should chronicle her life".

@A Quest For Knowledge: BLP1E is inherently not universal. It leaves open the possibility of some single-event persons to warrant an article on themselves. As Errant has taken the time to explain below, again.  Chickenmonkey  13:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Breivik arguably warrants a biography (I'd lean *slightly* in favour of deleting it) due to him embracing the publicity and promoting his ideology. Also; the event itself was vastly more notable - worldwide rather than a merely national (ish) event. Anthony, on the other hand, appears to have shunned the limelight and even tried to go into hiding. So this facet of the 1E policy doesn't apply. With Breivik his background can be argued to have relevance to his crimes - i.e. the origin of his ideology. Anthony, on the other hand, doesn't have a lot of interest pertaining to this actual case in her history. A biographical article covering other aspects of her life would be intrusive and stand in violation of our attitude to BLP's. This is why BLP1E exists, to prevent such a situation. As the vast majority of the media coverage of interest to us relates to this case then it is aptly recorded here. A biography is duplication, and a natural magnet for privacy violations. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Breivik was convicted of killing 77 people in two separate attacks. Calling that one event is a bit of a stretch. Anthony was accused in one death and acquitted. Quite a difference. Perhaps we need an explicit exception for mass murderers, but that is a question for a policy page.--agr (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

According to our article, the "two separate attacks" happened within hours of each other and were part of the same plan. I would say calling it 2 events is the stretch. In any case, this is one of the reasons I don't edit Wikipedia too much any more - too many editors misunderstanding our policies. Sigh. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I find BLP1E pretty clear as it applies to Casey Anthony, but I'm sure newbies like me still have a lot to learn. --agr (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, WP:BLP1E quite clearly allows for the creation of high-profile individuals such as this person. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The other problem is that given she was the "most hated woman in America" for a while, the article has potential to just be a trashing article, and attract a lot of nasty vandalism. And even if NPOV, what will it cover not covered here? A few more personal details of an otherwise unremarkable life in even more detail? Did her father really rape her or not? Did he instigate or participate in the coverup? Did he do it? What do her parents think of her? Will she get back with them or not? Did she really allow that video of her to get out and get paid last year? How does she like being off parole? Who's she dating? What she said at length to Piers Morgan? I mean there's all sorts of speculation out there from WP:RS. Her hoped for eventual marriage and pregnancy? Do we really want an article about all that?? I don't think she does, at least now. If she actively starts seeking publicity for books or other projects, that easily could change. CarolMooreDC 01:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's been 4 years - which begs the question about how long a single event can last? Clearly, 4 years exceeds Anders Behring Breivik's one year. I'm no math major but I'm pretty sure that a factor 4 exceeds a single year.

Of course, any Wikipedia article is subject to WP:NPOV. But we have plenty of articles about controversial figures. But controversy is not a valid reason to exclude an article from Wikipedia.

In any case, the point of Wikipedia is not to blindly and incorrectly regurgitate policy. The point of Wikipedia is to provide our readers with informative articles. Can anyone please explain why we can't have an educational article about this topic? It's been four years so there's been plenty of time to explain why. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, A Quest For Knowledge. How about laying out for us what you envision is going to be in this proposed article for Casey Anthony? Give us some very specific examples and explain what sort of content you think would be important to include in a Casey Anthony BLP, using actual items that you'd expect to have in it. The more detailed you are, the better. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, what does it cover others do not? My questions may have sounded facetious, but these are in fact the issues frequently covered about her, besides the actual death of the child and her questionable behavior. CarolMooreDC 03:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge - The fact that the "single event" occurred 4 years ago, or 1 year ago, or 2 months ago is irrelevant. It does not matter that she is still in the news; it matters why she is still in the news. The news media is still keeping track of her for many reasons that do not concern Wikipedia or any encyclopedia: they have time to fill, they want to sell newspapers, their readers/viewers want to know trivial information about her, etc. On top of this, all of that unencyclopedic coverage is the result of a single event.

We could very easily have an article on Casey Anthony, containing all of that trivial information that newspapers continue to sell, but that does not mean we should. Not everything newspapers deem "newsworthy" is encyclopedic, and it is not a matter of her being controversial; it is a case of her not being notable.  Chickenmonkey  04:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen and @CarolMooreDC: Actually, I would just rename the existing article to Casey Anthony. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How is that an improvement? The point of the BLP1E policy is to stop the case of biographies appearing in connection to events where there is no coverage relevant outside that event. This is because it traditionally becomes a magnet for privacy violations, and merely duplicates the information. We title the article about the event because, well, that is the topic... --Errant ^(chat!) 12:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Errant: It's an improvement because it's more in line with spirit (if not the letter) of WP:COMMONNAME. I don't have any hard data (yet) but I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying that "Casey Anthony" has far more recognition with our readers than "Caylee Anderson". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The persons name redirects here, so that isn't an issue. And indeed, Google happily is able to figure this out leaving the article at the top of various related search terms (which in fact works better because if you Google Casey Anthony the first result immediately identifies the one event she is associated with). Feel free to explain the relevance of "Caylee Anderson" - the article is not titled that, so the argument you make in relation to it seems... odd (you are claiming one name the article is not at is more common than another name the article is not at. So?). We don't title event articles under the name of one of the people involved because, again, this is not a biography. So; given that changing the title would be a step backward r.e. naming, and if you don't want to change the content, for what reason would you argue that a better name for this event is Casey Anthony? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Errant: I'm sorry, but I think I already answered that question. It's an improvement because that's the name most readers would associate with this article. I don't know how to explain it any other way. Whether Google can find the article or whether the reader will be redirected is besides point: we should use the common name for this topic.

And just to be clear, it doesn't necessarily have to be Casey Anthony. It could also be Casey Anthony controversy or some variation thereof. The point is that the current title is focusing on the wrong individual. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your latter suggestion certainly seems less common than the current one. Basically you're bike shedding over the title, which I find a total waste of time so I'm off to do other things :) Whether this article exists at Casey Anthony or the current title is not important to our readers, and if this is something you commonly propose I suggest finding more useful things to do. What I will say is; you're not the first person to want to move an event article to the name of the person the event is about. BLP1E was implemented to put an end to that problematic argument. I appreciate you might not be experienced in this sort of article (I wish I wasn't!!) - so you won't have come across this often. But if I had a pound for every time... This page could do with some content work though - if you're interested in that? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Errant: True, this dispute is a bit WP:LAME but that's actually part of the problem. We're spending wasting too much time due to the repeated misapplication of WP:BLP1E. The fact remains that BLP1E allows us to create articles about high-profile individuals no matter how many times someone insists that it doesn't. And the fact that we seem to get repeated requests about a Casey Anthony article suggests that our readers do expect such an article. The sad irony is that we've spent wasted 4 years arguing about this, and until it's resolved, I guess editors will be arguing about it for years to come. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have always been in favor of renaming this article "Casey Anthony trial", as I feel that is the notable event in question, but that idea has been rejected several times and is a completely different proposal from the creation of a biographical article about Casey Anthony.  Chickenmonkey  16:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear most of us don't think the name should be changed per policy and moving it would just end up in a revert. Can we drop it? CarolMooreDC 18:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

But it's not policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of Caylee should be included

A picture of Caylee, While she was alive, should be included. Especially since this is the only page on Wikipedia about Caylee herself. Does anybody agree? Bizarre carl (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I do, and maybe there are a few others, but check through the archives. There was a pretty big debate, and her photo was deleted, along with that of the suspect. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course---if possible. Rothorpe (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But I still think a photo is necessary. If there's a picture of Casey, there should be a picture of Caylee. Bizarre carl (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The picture of Casey is her arrest photo, which doesn't present any copyright problems. The prior pictures of Caylee, however, could not get their licensing issues worked out and were subsequently deleted. The copyright problem needs to be resolved before the issue can move forward. Personally, what I would prefer best would be a picture of both Caylee and Casey together, in the same photograph. There are more than 20 of them here but again, copyright is the primary issue. AzureCitizen (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Casey Anthony 2.0 -> State of Florida vs. Casey Marie Anthony

Time to rename this article or create one named "Casey Anthony" . Haters will hate.But .this is free encyclopedia. We have article for child who died of unknown cause. But we don't have article about her mother, who in fact created quite media stir? 50.9.97.53 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Discuss content, not the editor.

Oh look, another drive-by comment by an anonymous editor. Will he or she surprise us and follow up? Or will another protracted and circuitous debate ensue? Let's find out! Boneyard90 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC) darling I recommend you to read article :"IP's are humans too". You are the one who is hiding behind the nickname aka anonymous! not me! This is not just some scream in the dark I have been following the case closely(as you can see my IP- not anonymous like your nickname, is from FL) and I have been following this article as well. I have been contributing to wikipedia since beginning( Wiki servers were originally located in Saint Pete btw).so I don't deserve(or anyone else using IP) to be threatened with such a cocky behavior like you are showing above. There is couple of haters still being in deep denial. This article is in fact mainly about Casey not Caley. Caley is not with us anymore. And all she is notable for is her unfortunately , unknown case of dead. Nothing more, nothing else. Like it or not. Casey Anthony is the one who is creating all the media stir. So its time to grow up and change the name of the article. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC) If you follow up and look at Boneyard's user page, you'll see he actually provides a lot of personal information about himself and it doesn't look like he's trying to be totally anonymous. Nonetheless, I certainly agree with the sentiment "IP's are humans too". Let's all keep our comments restricted to discussing the content rather than editors from here on out and things will be fine.  :) Turning to issue, it's not really an article about Caylee or Casey per se. It's more about the event (Caylee's death) and the trial (Casey's prosecution and acquittal). There is a lot of information in the Talk Page archives on the issue previously which gives the background on why editors have argued for and against changing this article's name or creating a new BLP article for Casey Anthony. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Ok, so if this non-anonymous editor, shall I address you as Mr. or Ms. 53? Or can I call you "50.9"? Let's keep it formal. You haven't provided a name, so if you'll excuse the gender-bias, I'll go with "Ms. 53". Ms. 53, I hardly think I "threatened" you with my comment. A bit over the top. Second, I can't tell anything about your IP address. I understand there are ways to tell somethings about it, but I can't tell anything. So, yes, you are pretty anonymous. I even have to give the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not the same IP who made the previous drive-by comments, more rudely put and never followed up. And there are no "haters" here. That's the personal attack, which is far more inappropriate than my bit of sarcasm. There are interested editors who want to do the right thing, and in accordance with rules. And I don't use sarcasm only with IPs, it's with any editor who makes frivolous recommendations or demands (as has been done here), and fails to act on them. You demand that someone else do the work. I haven't seen a single WP-policy cited, nor have I seen a single reference posted here that would justify your position. You make demands, and there's no substance to them, and nothing of the spirit of cooperation to them. So, I have nothing against Anon-IPs, but I have little patience for editors like you, Ms. 53. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

this article is hardly about "Death of Caylee Anthony" only. We don't even know the case of death! time to change the name to reflect Casey Anthony.Because this is all about her. like it or not. that's the reality.50.9.97.53 (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the current structure, content, and design of the article, the only realistic names are either "Death of Caylee Anthony" or "Trial of Casey Anthony". The page would require a complete redesign to turn it into a WP:BLP on Casey Anthony; given that 95% of the content is about Caylee's death and Casey's trial and acquittal, it isn't feasible. Like it or not, that's the reality. Some time ago, editors debated about whether or not the title should be "Death of Caylee Anthony" or "Trial of Casey Anthony" and a majority thought the former was the best way to go as it is more encompassing. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

AzureCitizen is correct. CarolMooreDC 03:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is hardly about one event: Death of...( we don't even know WHEN and HOW it happen) . I agree that is more about trial and consequences. Current name is not accurate and is there just to appease some fanatics. This is free wikipedia.

50.9.97.53 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The "trial and consequences" are a result, a consequence even, of the death of an individual. And though details about the death may not be known, the fact remains that the individual is still dead. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

how is the unspecified death, place and cause of one 3yo person notable? Compare to her mother facing consequences and media circus then?

This article is not about one single unnoticeable event (from encyclopedic point of view, of course) . It is describing consequences. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a proper name for this article : "State of Florida vs. Casey Marie Anthony". Wikipedia is not memorial site (first picture in the article should be picture of Casey and Caylee) 50.9.97.53 (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The consequences and "media circus" are still the result of the otherwise "unnoteable event", being the death. This is pretty standard on many, many similar articles. The "media circus" is outside the scope of an article on the trial; however, it is connected to the death of the individual. There would be no "media circus" (or trial) without the death first. As for the photo, I am in complete agreement. I strongly disagreed with the decision to remove the photos of victim and suspect. The photo of the memorial was, I believe, a compromise between the two factions. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Boneyard90's analysis. CarolMooreDC 18:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There are only three editors interested in this page? How do we go about official proposal for name change. I do not believe that two editors represent opinion of the whole community here. Wikipedia is not memorial. So the first picture has to be replaced so does the name. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of editors have weighed in on this issue before, just look through the archives. With regard to the issue of the photo, you should put forward potential suggestions for replacements and let editors express their opinions. I too would be in favor of a lede photo of Caylee and Casey together; you can see over twenty such pictures here at this link. The relevant issue here, however, is copyright, not "Wikipedia is not a memorial". The current photo in the lede was inserted when a prior picture of Caylee and Casey together was deleted when it was discovered that the photo was not actually in the public domain; the new photo was used because it had a more tangible connection to the Death of Caylee Anthony than any other free use photographs and represented a location very close to where the body was found. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

all pictures provided during the trial are public domain. that shouldn't be an issue. Showing picture (actually two) of the place where the remains were found I found highly disrespectful and unethical.(there is no encyclopedic value in them) This is not a bulvar. Encyclopedia should have some class. Right now it looks like bulvar article with the name and the picture as well. "tangible connection" ? That would be picture with her mother. That could not be disputed. Place of her death or original resting place of the remains is unknown.BTW that place,on the first picture, is only estimated.Absolutely no encyclopedic value. And what exactly is wrong with the name of the article based on the trial? "State of Florida vs. Casey Marie Anthony" thats how it goes down in the history of law enforcement. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's not issue, go find one, upload it to Wikimedia, and see how that plays out with regard to what you think is in the public domain. As for the picture of the wooded area where Caylee's body was found, I doubt many editors here would agree with your contention that it's "highly disrespectful and unethical". How so? As for the article name, "Death of Caylee Anthony" is more encompassing of the totality of events described in the article than "State of Florida vs. Casey Marie Anthony", hence it continues to be a better fit. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disrespectful and not at all "tangible" . My as well we could add picture of inside of her skull? It's part of the evidence so it is public domain as well.50.9.97.53 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to continue this particular line of discussion, you should probably make an actual argument for the contention that the photo is highly disrespectful and unethical. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is about the trial, there is no question about it. Do you want to dispute that? You don't have to question my ability to identify public domain pictures.Florida state law is clear. All pictures used as evidence are public domain unless blocked by judge order. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, State of Florida vs. Casey Marie Anthony would be the much preferred title in my eyes, it being the main subject of the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a "question about it", that's why there is this discussion. The content of the article goes beyond the trial, to events that occurred both before and after, but it all started with the death of the child. I'm also pretty sure there are more than two editors interested in the article, but most probably became frustrated with the circuitous discussions. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The death is not encyclopedic without the trial. Everything we know about the death and the investigation of the death is a result of the trial. The trial is the encyclopedic event. If there was no trial, this would just be another tragic death; newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. The trial is what the article should focus on, and the trial is what the article focuses on.  Chickenmonkey  20:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

ok so how do we go about the change? How many people will we need? I am sure there will be plenty "hard core pro-Caylee?" (and I aam ok with their feeling.It just doesn't belong to encyclopedia) wikipedians. So there needs to be conclusion of majority before we do any next step.( like voting). I like to reason with logic and Wikipedia rules to prevent viscus, never ending circle.50.9.97.53 (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Category:Murdered American children. Most of them have "Death of" or, when murder is proved "Murder of". They don't have articles about the acquitted alleged murderer when that person has nothing else notable about themselves. CarolMooreDC 05:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

how is that relevant? Caylee was not murdered.

50.9.97.53 (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you are one of the wikipedians i have mentioned above. But you as well , need to respect logic and reasoning. Child death is not significant for wikipedia.And the whole article is mostly about the trial and her mother. So lets move over to proper changes. I will not ( as I noted above) be engaged in this viscous circle.50.9.97.53 (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are the primary contributor to the vicious, never-ending circle. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

discus content not the editor! feel free to read comment above :"The death is not encyclopedic without the trial. Everything we know about the death and the investigation of the death is a result of the trial" comment on that one.

50.9.97.53 (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Public domain picture

Credits: (Photo Released to Public Domain by Florida State Attorney's Office) cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/1f/21/Caylee%20and%20Casey%20Anthony_11.jpg site is blacklisted? why? 50.9.97.53 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No, they can't release it to the public domain - only the copyright holder can do that. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I understand that there are different in UK or EU , but we are talking about Florida law. Please see this article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_Florida_government 50.9.97.53 (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Florida laws you are referring to are intended to prevent the State of Florida and its agents from claiming copyright on public records. They do not empower the State of Florida to take copyright away from private individuals. It is very doubtful that the picture in question was shot by an agent of the State; most likely, it was taken by a private individual (someone in the Anthony family? One of Casey Anthony's friends, etc?). Yes, many of the records during the trial such as the Court's orders, written filings by the prosecution, written filings by the defense, etc., are in the public domain, and many photographs were used during the trial by the prosecution and the defense, but that does not put the copyright status of the photos themselves in the public domain. Ironically, the very same photo you linked above at the Examiner.com is the same photo that was used previously here and subsequently deleted (you can find the deletion discussion here). I think it would be good to have a photo like that in the article, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You might want to read the referenced deletion discussion, then follow that up by looking through the archives where these discussions have come up previously. By doing the ground work researching these items in the archives first, you can easily avoid mistakes like this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not made a mistake. Every picture used by state attorney as EVIDENCE (original, scanned or otherwise ) is in public domain(because it is public property) .That is a Florida law. The picture above, specifically, has been released to public domain by Florida State Attorney. Instead of playing this game with me. How about to create ticket for volunteers, who have the power to verify this? (I do not know how to do that)50.9.97.53 (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not understanding copyright law. There is no precedent for state attorney's taking photographs (or indeed any document/material they did not create) and making it public domain. As a thought experiment; consider if someone wrote a book that became subject to legal dispute - if it were presented as evidence does that put it in the public domain? You could email WP:OTRS if you like, but you will get the same answer: copyright of the photograph lies with the photographer, not with the state attorney. Anything the state attorney creates is public domain, that is what the law says. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

50.9.97.53, your pattern of edits also evidence a repeated tendency to assume bad faith in other editors statements and intentions, the latest being your comment "instead of playing this game with me." Try to keep that in mind when you post your replies. You are also clearly mistaken about copyright law in this regard and need to examine the issue more closely. In ErrantX's example given above, the physical copy of the book being used in court may belong to the State, but the copyrighted material itself can not be reproduced freely at will by others. Same thing with photographs physically seized as evidence, the original copyright holder's rights are not abrogated by the State holding a trial and using them as evidence. Again, take a moment and consider the fact that if you do not take the time to educate yourself in reading the articles archives and getting up to speed on what has been discussed previously, other editors are not obliged to waste time repeatedly correcting your mistakes. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

your assumption and your personal explanation of Florida law are irelevant. We are not talking here about some book. Evidence in question are SCANS of the personal pictures of the subject. All evidence used in Florida is in fact public property. Fair use, non commercial, as of Wikipedia article would not violate any copyright law. I have mentioned solution above. There is no need for assumptions. All we need to do is to create ticket for volunteers who have the power and means to verify copyright of the linked picture.50.9.97.53 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no assumption. I am explaining to you how the law works. In terms of a ticket "for volunteers who have the power and means to verify copyright of the linked picture"; I would be one of those volunteers. Such a ticket would not be useful because OTRS agents have no especially power; email tickets are for when the copyright holder needs to confirm their identity and provide a license release via email. In this case you are making an argument that the copyright has passed to the Florida State Attorney. As explained, this is inaccurate. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that 50.9.97.53 asserts "your assumption and your personal explanation of Florida law are irelevant [sic]" in 50.9.97.53's steadfast conviction that his or her assumptions and personal explanations of Florida law are infallible here. Physical possession of physical property (like a photograph, be it paper hard copy or an scanned image which is now an electronic file sitting on a hard drive) does not mean that the possessor of that physical property also automatically acquires the copyright. Let me try to illustrate it another way: if I take photographs of you at your wedding, per your request, and sell you the photographs, you now own the photographs (be they paper or electronic). You do not, however, own the copyright, unless you and I make that part of the contract (and most professional photographers do not do so). In the issue at hand, the State may acquire evidence as part of a criminal trial, and that evidence may become State property, but that does not vitiate the copyright that is owned by the person who took the original pictures in the first place. Wikipedia can not take the images from the photos that were used in evidence at the trial and display them on the article here by claiming that the State of Florida has released the copyright. If 50.9.97.53 still disagrees, perhaps they should take the issue up on a Wikipedia noticeboard somewhere, as we aren't going to entertain this flawed notion indefinitely.

Changing the subject, 50.9.97.53 did bring up the issue of non commercial fair use, which is entirely different concept from the mistaken claim that the State of Florida now owns the copyright to the photos at issue. That issue too, however, was also discussed at length in the talk page archives. Once again, a careful reading of the archives will help 50.9.97.53 figure out what editors had to say about that the last time fair use was considered. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Foolproof Suffocation

Here's some new information that hasn't yet been incorporated into the article:

Potentially incriminating computer searches missing from the case against Casey Anthony when it went to trial were the subject of a local television report Tuesday night that delved into whether the evidence could have led to a conviction.

The report centered on an online search made on the Anthony family's computer for the term "foolproof suffocation" which did not surface at trial but which defense lawyer Jose Baez wrote about in his book about the case.

The Tuesday night report by WKMG-Channel 6 investigative reporter Tony Pipitone, advertised to contain evidence "that could have changed the jury's mind," was not the first done on the searches, but contained new details, such as that prosecutors didn't have about 99 percent of the browser information from June 16, 2008, at trial.

from "Report questions Internet searches missing from Casey Anthony trial" The Orlando Sentinel. November 21, 2012. 70.254.224.177 (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional Reference Material

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office, which possessed the evidence but failed to extract it and turn it over to prosecutors, now realizes what it missed. “There was an oversight,” said sheriff’s Capt. Angelo Nieves, confirming that the agency tried and failed to extract information that would have revealed the entire Internet browsing history for that day. “This has been a learning experience for investigators as well.”

from WKMG. "Cops, prosecutors botched Casey Anthony evidence: Computer search for 'foolproof suffocation' never found" by Tony Pipitone. November 20, 2012. 70.254.224.179 (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, any entry ALSO would have to include the following:

After Baez revealed the "foolproof suffocation" search in his book, Phoenix attorney Isabel Humphrey requested and received a copy of the browsers’ histories from the Sheriff's Office.

Baez's theory that George Anthony did the search while contemplating suicide "was as crazy as the nanny story," Humphrey told Local 6, referring to Casey Anthony's original claim that a babysitter had kidnapped Caylee.

Baez concedes the records are open to interpretation, and notes browser data alone cannot conclusively prove who was using a computer at any given time.

Baez suspected the state did not want to introduce at trial cell and computer records because they refuted something George Anthony had insisted on all along: that he is certain Casey Anthony and Caylee left the house at 12:50 that afternoon.

Plus lots of other evidence of investigator's incompetence and evidence open to interpretation. Bottom line, it would have to be very carefully written. I would have cleaned up article a long time ago, but there is so much to do on wikipedia to point out there are so many innocent children really being killed by evil people and to defend undeserving people smeared by partisan media and editors, I just haven't had the time. CarolMooreDC 17:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 November 2012

I would like to add this minor changes to the last part of the article, which was written on november 26th after new evidences came out: Point missing at the end, commas in some places, to make it more understandable, and hyperlink Firefox, Google Search and Myspace

--

New Evidence

On November 26th, 2012 the Associated Press reported new evidence that was covered by The Christian Post . Someone at the Casey Anthony household used the Firefox browser to do a Google search for "fool-proof suffication" (sic), then clicked on an article about suicide involving taking poison and putting a plastic bag over your head, for Caylee Anthony was found in a plastic bag. The browser then recorded a user using MySpace, a site used by Casey Anthony but not George Anthony. The trunk of Casey Anthony's car recorded traces of chloroform. --

nico Jones (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Further tweaks that I made to that section: [4][5]. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am setting this edit request to Done per the above response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol, regarding these changes, while I'm fine with the text changes, we should generally use WP:SECONDARY SOURCES instead of WP:PRIMARY SOURCES. Adding one or two secondary sources beside the primary source is better than having the primary source by itself. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Are investigative news reports primary sources? I called it "use original source that investigated info" just to differentiate from an AP report that summarized it and a Christian Post article that summarized AP. In fact unless another news source does it's own investigation or interviews, everything else will just be reporting what they reported. But then they also would not necessarily be a primary source either. But definitely a good idea to check news archives now and/or in a week or so to see if anyone else has picked up other angles or fact checked THIS article. CarolMooreDC 22:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's like if ABC investigated a matter and we used ABC as the source for that information, then the ABC source is a primary source. The same applies in this case, but with the source in question instead. But, as the policy states, using the primary source is fine. Especially if also supported by one or more secondary sources. I just wanted to note that we should generally use secondary sources because they are usually preferred over primary sources on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Two of Anthony's lying convictions thrown out

How are we going to tackle this in this article, such as in the infobox? And should we wait until Anthony and her defense team attempt to get the other two lying convictions thrown out? Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the text and the info box. I think BLP requires us to keep her conviction record up to date. If there are further appeals, we can add info then.--agr (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the infobox, I think a more practical long-term solution would be to collapse the information in the "suspect(s)" and "verdict" fields to be simple, succinct, and direct - that the mother was put on trial for murder on date X and what the outcome of that charge was on date X. The points that she was also found not guilty of child abuse and manslaughter, but guilty of four counts of providing false information, of which two were thrown out on a first appeal, and now a further appeal is underway, is probably better addressed in the text. Going forward from here, it will be easier to manage and again reduces the bloat in the lede section. I will take a WP:BOLD stab at editing the infobox and also updating the text in the last paragraph of the lede, let me know what you think. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. No objections from me on your WP:BOLD move regarding this, AzureCitizen. I tweaked the two references.[6][7] Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has incorrect information contained within it – in the evidence section. I know the information is incorrect because that section mentions some of the work I have done.

My corrections are included below. The main issue is that LIBS was not used for these air analyses - GC/MS was.

The discoverer of the remains repeated the same basic story that he had told police.[53] On Friday, October 24, 2008, a forensic report by Dr. Arpad Vass of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory judged that results from an air sampling procedure analyzed with a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) performed on the trunk of Casey Anthony's car showed chemical compounds "consistent with a decompositional event" based on the presence of five key chemical compounds out of 16 identified in the trunk of the car that Dr. Vass' research group considered significant in this human decomposition. Investigators also stated that the trunk smelled strongly of human decomposition[54]. The process has not been affirmed by a Daubert Test in the courts.[55] Dr. Vass' group also stated there was chloroform “in significant levels” in the car trunk.[56] Dr. Vass’ decomposition findings were later confirmed in closing arguments when the Defense admitted that the child was placed in the trunk of the car after her death.Arpadvass4 (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Where are your WP:Reliable sources for your proposed changes? Wikipedia goes by WP:Verifiability, not unsourced material or WP:Original research. As for you being who you state that you are, there is no way for us to know that you are that researcher (not generally at least; there are confirmation methods you could choose from). Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Murderabilia web site

Mention of the specific web site seems like advertising to me. Why is it necessary?--agr (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a notable and controversial website? Doesn't seem worth mentioning if we simply state "a website." Mentioning the name in this case is not much different than if we were to mention Facebook or eBay by name. However, as you likely saw, I did question us calling the website controversial after I tweaked that text (which was added by Donnie777). Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If her clothing was being sold on Facebook or eBay, I would not see a need to mention that either. I'm starting to question the appropriateness of the whole incident. What does it have to do with the Death of Caylee Anthony? This article is not and should not become a biography of Caylee Anthony, much less a catchall for trivia about her. We don't even know for sure that the articles of clothing belonged to her, we just have the selling site's word for it, hardly a reliable source.--agr (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "This article is not and should not become a biography of Caylee Anthony, much less a catchall for trivia about her." And I am fine with that material being removed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Coming back to note that, well, I mostly agree about the biography part; I state "mostly" since Casey Anthony currently redirects here and "Murder of" and "Death of" Wikipedia articles sometimes include a biography section about the person accused of murder (or some biographical content). But again, I get your point and am on board with it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I took out the section on on the offer to sell her used clothing and some other material, including comments that were mere speculation and details of her personal letters from jail. There is still stuff I'm not sure belongs, like the allegation that Cindy Anthony committed perjury.--agr (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw what you removed. I'm fine with that. The perjury matter, since it was such a big point, does belong, in my opinion. This is despite the fact that Cindy did not face legal consequences; the fact that she committed perjury is a well documented aspect that should remain in this article, though it could be integrated better. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I realize that a statement is being made by not having a wiki page for Casey Anthony whereas there is one for her daughter. But making such a statement is beneath the objectivity standards that wikipedia employs everywhere else. If you simply recite facts there is no way to avoid a page for Casey Anthony.

Beyond that, to the extent a statement is being made it's the wrong statement. Casey Anthony was acquitted of any culpable criminal role in her daughter's death. Many people disagree with the verdict, but wikipedia shouldn't be making judgments a jury was unwilling to make. 72.225.47.155 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Why there is not yet a Wikipedia Casey Anthony article is clear from the extensive discussions that have gone on at Talk:Casey Anthony about it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Caylee's picture?

Shouldn't there be a picture of Caylee? All there is, is a picture of her mother, a crime scene photo, shouldn't there be one of her, considering it was HER murder, not to mention at the time it was broadcasted and discussed on television her picture, the one in a pink shirt with her hand under her head was shown religiously? --Matt723star (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem has to do with copyright. It has been discussed before, if you look through the archives. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Caylee is dead, I'm certain that this is a case where the WP:Non-free image is allowed; such images are allowed in various similar articles, such as Matthew Shepard and Murder of Meredith Kercher, and in articles that are not focused on the famous person's death but just happen to show what the deceased person looked like. The rationale for keeping the Caylee image out of this article was never strong. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

EXACTLY! And I can not see why the fight for her image's inclusion wasn't strong. It happened to HER. What's an encyclopedic article without an image of who the article's about? --Matt723star (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Good point Flyer. I suppose that if someone wants to work this issue again, a suitable image could be found and added... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I know that at least one (non-valid) argument that was made for not including the image was something about respecting Caylee and/or her family by not having an image of her in this article; I don't feel like going and reading all or some of the image arguments at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I did a quick archive search for "Caylee picture" and turned this up. I must admit, my own memory isn't that good on everything that was discussed here previously, it's been awhile... AzureCitizen (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It just makes no sense to me. What's the difference between this case, and the Jonbenet Ramsey case? Both are about children who were murdered, their parents were accused, yet on her article, which is titled Murder of Jonbenet Ramsey, her picture is the first thing you see. What about the murder of Trayvon Martin? On that article his picture appears near his bio. Couldn't something of that sort make an appearance here? --Matt723star (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Address of House

The Orlando Florida home of the Anthony family is in foreclosure. http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/11/12/george_and_cindy_ant.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.11.152 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably not right for the article. Bali88 (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Death of Caylee Anthony

Cyberbot II has detected links on Death of Caylee Anthony which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is one of the reasonable uses of a blacklisted website. It's not citing change.org for any facts about the case, it's merely reporting that there is in fact a petition there as well as the signature count--facts that are unlikely to be questioned. I think it's fine. If there is some dispute though, we can just remove the reference to change.org (or use a news source, although that won't have the signature count). Bali88 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Link was replaced by GermanJoe. Thanks, GermanJoe. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)