Wikipedia

Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 12

< Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Pppery in topic Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Death date in the lead

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

With this edit, Costello628 (talk · contribs) added "June 16" to the 2008 death date given for the death of Caylee Anthony. The death date of this child was never confirmed, however, and the "June 16" death date is the one argued by the defense team, which makes listing it in the lead as though it is fact a dubious and biased matter. With this edit, Samsara rightly reverted Costello628. Then Bali88 readded the date, stating, "Replaced date of death. Everyone, including Casey, seems to agree that the child died on that specific day. I think it's reasonable to state that the death occurred that day." I reverted Bali88, stating, "Who is 'everyone'? And how can we trust Casey's word? Unless a WP:Reliable source is there for it, we should leave it as it [is] because we don't know. [...] The woman barely told the truth at all."

Judging by your edits to this article and the Timeline of the Casey Anthony case article (which is also on my WP:Watchlist), Bali88, I know that you believe the defense team. But we need to keep our biases on this topic (yes, everyone has a bias on this topic) out of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue of believing one side over the other. If the prosecution had stated that she died on June 16, and the defense disputed that, I would argue against putting a date at all. If the defense said she died June 16, and the prosecution disputed that, I would argue against putting a date at all. But we have a situation where all evidence is that something happened on the 16th, she left the house on that day, there are suspicious searches that day, the prosecution alleges that the child died that day, the defense agrees with the prosecution on that child died on that date. I feel like if every involved party agrees on a specific fact, we can go ahead and treat that fact as true. I'm not sure there's a good argument to look at something that was stipulated to by everyone at trial as being questionable. Maybe there are some fringe theorists out there who think the child died on some other date, but it's certainly not a major theory and no one involved in the case has alluded to that, so there's no reason to consider it. I think we should look at this the same way we would the George Zimmerman case. No one directly witnessed him shooting Trayvon, but he confessed and the evidence points to him and him alone being there holding the gun. They went to trial with this set of facts that everyone agreed were true. No one would argue that we should go back and rewrite the article to say "we don't know who shot Trayvon." because that fact is not in dispute. I don't feel that the date of death in this case is in dispute either. Bali88 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
It is an issue for a person to believe one side over the other when that person lets that belief bias their editing. There is no proof at all that all parties agree that Caylee died on the 16th of June; if there were, I would not be as opposed to it being listed as fact. This is not the same thing as the Trayvon Martin case at all. We should not add "June 16"; this is per what I stated above. If you want to take this to another form of WP:Dispute resolution other than this talk page, we can. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"There is no proof at all that all parties agree"...based on what? The prosecution was the first to allege the child died on June 16th. The indictment lists the 16th as the date of death. It was what they alleged at the trial. There was never any argument from the prosecution that the death occurred after June 16th. The defense then agreed with them. They fully stipulated that the death occurred on the 16th. There is no disagreement on the date of death from anyone involved in the case. Of course, there are people in the world who believe the death happened sometime on the 15th and somehow George and Cindy are covering for her. There are a few randos who believe that Tony is covering for her when he says that Caylee wasn't with them that evening. And i'm sure there are a few out there who believe that Zanny the Nanny took her. But there is no serious contention that the child died on any other day and certainly no reliable sources that argue this. All relevant parties agree that Caylee died that day. And yes, I will concede I have a bias. I do wrongful conviction advocacy, so I am sensitive to that side of things. But I can't see how that could possibly play into this particular issue. Find me some evidence that the prosecution is hazy on the day of death or believes the death happened at some other time and I'll agree to leave it out. Bali88 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You have no WP:Reliable sources to back up your claim that Caylee died on June 16; you are engaging in speculation talk, just like Baez. Like the Disappearance section of this article currently states, "According to Casey Anthony's father, George Anthony, Casey left the family's home on June 16, 2008, taking her daughter Caylee (who was almost three) with her and did not return for 31 days." There is no proof whatsoever that Caylee died on that same day. Nor is there any proof that the prosecution and Caylee's family definitively believe that she died on that day. I don't have to find any evidence for people not thinking that Caylee died on June 16; in this case, the WP:Burden is on you. If that date goes back into the article as fact (or even as "June 16, 2008?"), it will be removed again. And a WP:RfC will surely take care of this matter, but it will be a waste of time. I am done with this discussion unless you are willing to take it to a wider audience. If you are, then do that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Bottomline is this: Her death date is speculation, whether coming from the prosecution or the defense; that's why we've kept it out of the lead for years.
As for "wrongful conviction advocacy," yes, it was easy for me to see that you believe that Casey Anthony did not kill her daughter. Yes, the vast majority of people, including legal experts, believe she killed her daughter. And even the people who found her not guilty believe she killed her daughter. But there will always be those who believe she didn't do it, similar to the O.J. Simpson case. I don't deny anyone their beliefs on these matters; I simply ask that they edit responsibly on these matters. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
What I believe has zero to do with this issue. We will allow others to add to this discussion. Bali88 (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I reiterate: "It is an issue for a person to believe one side over the other when that person lets that belief bias their editing." The fact that I could see the bias in your editing is a problem. But, yes, we should let others comment on this death date matter. And if you truly want others to comment on it, you would do as I suggested and seek a wider audience. This talk page is generally not active anymore, and even watchers of this talk page commonly forgo commenting here these days. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
And I can see the bias in your editing as well. I haven't added any undue bias in this article and I don't intend to. It's a good article. I didn't put the date of death because I believe I want to support the defense, I put the date of death because I believe it's a well accepted fact, accepted by all parties involved, and there is no reason to question it. Maybe it's just the way you're writing, but it sounds like you're really getting riled up about this issue and it's not really that big a deal. Calm down. I'm not trying to ruin the article. I'm not trying to make it any less neutral than it is. I promise. I don't know how to use the rfc, so put a request on the WP:death page. We can go from there. Bali88 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Point to exactly where I have edited with bias on this topic, and I will point out where I was following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and fixing your biased editing. I get riled up by people editing Wikipedia in a way that is at odds with how Wikipedia is supposed to work, whether that is violating the WP:Neutral policy, editing with a WP:Advocacy slant, or something else, as is clear on my user page and at the top of my talk page. The way you have edited this topic, including a matter at a related article, is indeed a big deal. As for using the WP:RfC, follow its directions. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change under the bold Investigation section stating: "On December 11, 2008, Kronk again called the police. They searched and found the remains of a child in a trash bag.[3]" to: "On December 11, 2008, Kronk again called the police. They searched and found the scattered remains of a child near a trash bag." PLEASE CHANGE THE SOURCE! (the correct information can be found here: https://statevcasey.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/the-duct-tape/ --- under the bold Analysis section. It states: "The vertebrae bones were found together and the trunk bones (pelvis, etc.) were found together, but they were found in separate areas from the skull and with some carnivore damage. Dr. Shultz testified that this implied that there was still tissue attaching these bones together when they were moved by animals (read report). This means that the child decomposed outside of the bag, not inside.") thank you. Mjohnson1807 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Death of Caylee Anthony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Image of Caylee?

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Out of curiosity, would it be appropriate to include a non-free image of Caylee in the article for visual identification purposes? Other articles of this nature have done so.--GouramiWatcherTalk 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think so. I would support such a photo being added.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
To pass the non-free content requirements her particular appearance would have to be commented on in the article (to justify illustrating the text for context) or the photo itself as an object would have to be subject to commentary. I'm not sure we can pass those hurdles with this article. Eventually the image will be out of copyright and we can include it. --Errant (chat!) 21:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Gourami Watcher and ErrantX, this (as BabbaQ knows) has been discussed before; see Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 11#Caylee's picture? for the most recent discussion before this latest one. For deceased people, there has been more leeway with WP:Non-free images. In the aforementioned discussion, I pointed to Matthew Shepard and the Murder of Meredith Kercher as examples; there are also other examples. All these examples are what I'm sure Gourami Watcher means. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Caylee Anthony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance section

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Twice now, I have reverted edits MisterCake made to the Disappearance section. That is seen here and here, with a followup note here. Going by MisterCake's explanations of his changes, as documented here and here, MisterCake is trying to balance the section, based on what the defense argued, but I see WP:False balance in MisterCake's edits; I see content being added that generally was not covered in sources (which brings WP:Due weight into question) and an attempt to make George Anthony look suspicious, such as the following unsourced WP:Editorializing bit: "George also seemed to remember everything about e. g. what Caylee wore, despite his not being asked until a month later." This is despite the fact that the defense argued that George was involved in Caylee's death...without a bit of evidence to back up the assertion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Trying to balance the multiple stories, and have tried to alert WP Death on the subject. Will live with the reverts ultimately, but to act like e. g. George's questionable memory is pulled out of my bum is silly. George's (or, if you like, the whole family's) lies are the most significant part of the trial. The defense has no burden (yet they did provide evidence. The duct tape is the most obvious), and they never said George killed anyone. So, saying they provided no evidence strikes me as weak sauce on top of wrong anyway on top of a strawman. Cake (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Stating that "George's questionable memory is pulled out of my bum is silly" and "George's lies are the most significant part of the trial" reflects a non-neutral approach in your editing of the section. What lies? Even the best of witnesses do not always remember everything and are not always consistent in their accounts. I am not aware of his supposed lies being highlighted, except by the defense. I am aware of the prosecution, defense, law enforcement and media highlighting Casey Anthony's lies, however, and the media noting that her "Caylee drowned" defense was identical to a story that Casey Anthony heard in jail. And, no, the defense provided no evidence; this is made clear in many reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
He claims Casey left at 12:50. He somehow remembers everything Caylee was wearing. Phone and computer shows she didn't leave until 4 something. The gas can fight makes no sense and probably never happened. He lies about the gas cans and the duct tape repeatedly. He wants to set up a "kid finders tent" (are they looking for kids these days?) in the woods. The jurors mention the lack of evidence and George's lies. "I am not aware of the supposed lies being highlighted, except by the defense" sounds like hollow question begging. Who else is going to highlight them? I am not aware of their being ignored except by the prosecution. See here and click around the sections for many lies of George's. Or, hell, watch the trial, which is the main reason I did not cite those things. It may seem like bland editorializing, but the section seemed to call for that instead of copypasting cross examination. A source saying "the defense provided no evidence" to virtue signal is not the same as the defense providing no evidence. They provided more than the prosecution, and didn't have to provide any. I don't even think George killed her. I'd bet you think Casey is guilty. The one's who actually heard the evidence aren't on your side. I was attempting to make wikipedia less like a novel by not accepting hearsay or control of a scene from Lee, Cindy, or George just as much as one wouldn't except it from Casey. I didn't mention anything about drowning, you're just emoting and getting off-topic there. However, her interrogators mentioned drowning to her more significantly. Cake (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Your "20:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)" response (and add-ins afterward) is you taking pieces of what happened and synthesizing matters. As the Defense, prosecution, and jury section states, "'There was a suspicion of [George Anthony]' that played a part in the jury's deliberations. The foreman stated his work experience enabled him to read people and that George Anthony 'had a very selective memory' which stayed with the jurors, emphasizing that the jury was frustrated by the motive, cause of death, and George Anthony." I see nothing there about "George was a massive liar." And there are a number of sources noting that the jury only or mainly had suspicions of George Anthony because of what Baez claimed, without evidence, about George Anthony. The jury has also been explicitly clear that they believe that Casey Anthony is guilty, but felt there was not enough evidence to find her guilty. As the Wikipedia article notes, "Juror number three—Jennifer Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student—told ABC News, 'I did not say she was innocent' and 'I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.' She added, 'I'm not saying that I believe the defense,' but that 'it's easier for me logically to get from point A to point B' via the defense argument, as opposed to the prosecution argument. Ford believed George Anthony was 'dishonest.' She said the jury 'was sick to [their] stomachs to get [the not-guilty] verdict' and that the decision process overwhelmed them to the point where they did not want to talk to reporters afterwards." And as juror number two, a 46-year-old male who requested to stay unidentified, stated, "everybody agreed if we were going fully on feelings and emotions, [Anthony] was done". He stated that a lack of evidence was the reason for the not-guilty verdict: "I just swear to God ... I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do ... But it wasn't there." He also said that Anthony was "not a good person in my opinion".
It is well known that the defense provided no evidence of how Caylee died or of their claim that George Anthony sexually abused Casey. It is not a matter of one source making that clear; it's a matter of the literature on this topic making that clear. Therefore, we adhere to the WP:Due weight policy. Unless a source states or is clear that George Anthony lied, we shouldn't be stating or implying it. Reddit is not a WP:Reliable source for claims about George lying. Furthermore, the Disappearance section is not for calling George's character into question, which you were clearly doing. Your editing and comments above show that you clearly think George Anthony had a part in Caylee's death or covering up her death. Stating that "the one's who actually heard the evidence" don't believe that Casey Anthony is guilty is an atrocious inaccuracy, considering the many legal commentators, and jurors, who believe that she's guilty. Either way, this article is not to be used for "Oh, I believe he or she is guilty, so I'm going to paint that the article that way." type of editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Death of Caylee Anthony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Unreadable

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is almost impossible to read because of the gross overdetail. EEng 23:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Caylee Anthony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Duct tape?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

If Caylee drowned, why would duct tape be needed. Everyone backed peddled and stories kept changing. Still no proof of drowning. What DROWNING victim needs duct tape over their mouths to be buried? Beckyponce6 (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This looks like you are trying to be a detective. That is not the purpose of this page. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article using information sourced to reliable sources. We never use the opinions of individual editors. ~ GB fan 11:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Beckyponce6, yes, the drowning claim was never proven; furthermore, there was never any evidence for it. The article is clear about that. Plus, there is evidence that Casey came up with that story while locked up. Regarding the context of your post, though, see WP:Not a forum. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Mason??? SERIOUSLY!

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In reading Death of Caylee Anthony I've again found another reoccurring issue with wikipedia that at times, frustrates me... In reading the "Aftermath" section of the article, statements made by someone called "Mason" are included in the first 2 paragraphs... WHO THE HECK IS MASON??? Even the sited references don't quote this "Mason." So who is he or she? Often in more current events I'm finding statements and quotes by people with only a single surname and no full name or indication of who they are or the relation they have to the subject. Are they experts? Is this "Mason" so well known that the words spoken is gospel and I'm some backwoods moron for not knowing who "Mason" obviously is? I always seem to run into these names and find myself stumped because the statements seem to be of expertise on the subject but can't be certain of the validity because whoever cut and pasted or simply added the statement failed in the least to give them a full name! Even if you fail to reference a persons background in the field you should start the first mentioning with a FULL FREAKIN' NAME!!! I have a feeling this is not the end of this gripe... JericVgilbert (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

J. Cheney Mason Got it! Yes I was pretty pent up with the search for that one so yes I went all dramatic! But I do think this quoting experts by a single name gets difficult to follow after so much reading. I mean, If a person has a 3 to 6 lawyer defense team a single name reference isn't going to always float when mentioned further down. JericVgilbert (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Replied. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Caylee (name) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should there be included in this article a separate section of pop culture relevance? Ex. Marcia Clark's "re-opening" of the discussion surrounding the case on A&E, where she brings in experts from the original trial? The Casey Anthony episode debuted March 29, 2018. (For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztjjvJHo-10.) JDBrant (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Such a section just for that? No. Also see the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content essay. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

New Developments that should be in Articlr

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Casey Anthony 2017 Interview: https://apnews.com/c36cea8e48364edeba200e6e666997a6

Roy Kronk loses defamation case against Casey Anthony: https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2020/01/14/casey-anthony-scores-another-legal-victory-in-defamation-lawsuit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.180.13 (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

diary

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

according to Criminal Psychology channel on Youtube, there was a diary. Was that not used as evidence against her? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect date

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just before citation [35], it states that Kronk called police on three dates in August. It should be December. Ibmxgeo (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No, he initially found the body in August and called a number of times. Police couldn't be bothered so he eventually gave up. He then needed money in December, so he tried again and the body was recovered in Dec. but he found the remains in August.Bali88 (talk)

Non sequiturs

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In the "Witness testimony" section, it says "On June 30 and July 1, the prosecutor presented rebuttal arguments, beginning by showing the jury photographs of Caylee's clothes and George's suicide note." But this is the first mention of "suicide" in the article, so it makes no sense in the context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

At the very end, under "Later information", it says "In January 2020, Kronk lost an appeal of his defamation case against Anthony and her attorneys. A US District Court judge upheld a lower court finding that there was not enough evidence to prove she willfully defamed Kronk." But there is no other mention of this case (least of all in the "Civil suits" section where it belongs) or what it alleges.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New to editing and don't know exactly how to insert a semi-protected edit request (template is not helpful), but the current reference link #62 is dead. Archive.org version of the site is here. I'll keep looking through the other links and clean up once I can edit semi-protected articles. --RookWeaver (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Dates?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What does this date mean? Was Cayley 2 when she died, or 3? “ Caylee Marie Anthony (August 9, 2005 – June-December 2008) ” 2601:343:C202:4430:9591:3D95:F36F:B23D (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Age not correct

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The skeletal remains found were of THREE year old Caylee, not TWO 66.11.103.46 (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about the case, but I think the point being made is that she never turned three. Even according to the theory offered by the defense, she died while she was still two, and it just took a long time to find her bones. The opening sentence suggests that she may have died as late as December 2008, but it's not clear to me whether someone has actually contended that she died within ten days of her bones being located. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The math really shouldn't be this hard to deduce. Caylee was born August 9, 2005. She was reported to be missing on July 15, 2008 and had last been seen by her grandmother 31 days prior. Follow along: She was one year old on August 9, 2006. She was two years old on August 9, 2007. She would have been three years old on August 9, 2008. Her remains were found on December 11, 2008, but based on the date of disappearance and the state of the remains, it is unlikely she was alive that long. Forensically it could not be determined exactly when she died, so they have to give a window during which she may have died, but the greatest likelihood is that she died before her third birthday, based upon the reported missing date of July 15, 2008. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Citations supported by “unfounded” & “broken” links. Not a good look for Wikipedia.

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Page is full of faulty statements in which are supported by broken links that cannot be edited out. Please discard the allegations with broken links. 74.97.27.39 (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a rather long article with more than 200 citations. Please be more specific, and perhaps we can assist. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments14 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Valid and equally strong points have been raised by all sides of the discussion, and I don't see a consensus to arrive at a conclusive title. While a typical no consensus closure would see that the article remain at the current title, "Killing of", however as noted by Amakuru in the discussion, the article was moved to "Killing of" title in May 2022 undiscussed, and per WP:NOCON, the title should be moved back to the most recent prior stable title, "Death of". (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Killing of Caylee Anthony → Death of Caylee Anthony – This article was retitled to "killing of" over "death of" earlier this year. WP:"Murder_of"_articles indicates this isn't correct. In fact it uses the Caylee Anthony case as its example for when "killing of" should not be used, quote: "In the death of Caylee Anthony, the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as 'murder' under Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise such a case should also not be labeled as 'killing'." Shiningbell (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. The current title is WP:BIASed especially since it was a “not guilty” verdict. Shwcz (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:DEATHS. "Orange and Osceola County chief medical examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia testified that she determined the toddler's manner of death to be homicide"[1] 162 etc. (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Our article notes '...the cause of death was listed as "death by undetermined means."' What happened is disputed and we should let our readers come to their own conclusions. A biased title reduces the article's credibility.--agr (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose OP was doing fine up to the last line. Murder and homicide ("a killing") are two entirely separate things. The outcome of the trial is irrelevant to the medical examiner's determination. The determination was homicide. The 'means' are irrelevant. That nobody was convicted does not change its nature as a homicide. Editorial: She was two years old. So, it's extremely unlikely she committed suicide. Her remains were found in a laundry bag. It's highly unlikely a two year old would get lost/run away from home, then crawl into a laundry bag and therein die. It is possible, but not probable. The final legal determination by the medical examiner was homicide. It is the Killing of Caylee Anthony. And to put a finer point on it, from the WP:"Murder of"_articles page: If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated, the article still can't be titled "Murder of [victim]", but it should also not be titled "Death of [victim]", as this would be imprecise. Instead, the article should be titled "Killing of [victim]". On that basis alone the proposal fails, while acknowledging the 'murder of' article is an essay, not a policy. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
    The section you quoted doesn't support your point. "If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated" The "killing of" title would have been appropriate only before the end of the trial. Shiningbell (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. The reason "yet" is in parenthesis is that it can be read as "but a murder has not been adjudicated" or "but a murder has not yet been adjudicated". In this case, a murder has not yet been adjudicated. It remains a homicide. That a person wasn't found guilty doesn't preclude a different person from being tried, nor does it change the evidence that led the medical examiner to declare it a homicide. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I see your point there. But if you follow through with that logic, if we aren't implying Casey's a murderer with the title, aren't we necessarily implying Caylee was killed by some unknown killer? Which means endorsing a theory shared by almost no one - not the state, not the defense, not the judge or jury (they both point to the accidental drowning theory as the most likely 2nd option in later interviews) and not the media. Shiningbell (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
WP should never imply or infer anything - we simply provide the information found in the sources (I know - that's a big 'duh'!). But we also can't synthesize anything beyond the fact that the coroner ruled it a homicide. Nobody has been convicted of her murder. It's worth pointing out, as with many unsolved killings, evidence uncovered later - even decades - can be sufficient to bring charges anew. Who killed her - based upon the not guilty verdict - is not known. That it was a killing is known, and it was the "official" determination, and is rather obvious from the evidence in the case. It's a tough one. All sorts of things have been and could be speculated. But we can't engage in that speculation, not specifically (the best that can be done is for example, 'perhaps a boyfriend of "someone" killed Caylee on behalf of that "someone"'). So, absent evidence other than that it was a homicide, absent a conviction - yet - it remains a homicide by an unknown person by an unknown means. As I said, it's tough one, particularly with so much circumstantial evidence surrounding it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I do understand what you're saying makes technical sense. But carry this through to its conclusion.
Say Derek Chauvin had been found not guilty, because the jury was convinced by the defense's argument that it was an innevitable overdose or heart attack. Would it be fair to still call that article "The Killing of George Floyd" (The coroner ruled it a homicide)?
That would be seen by any reader as a nakedly biased implication that George Floyd was murdered by police officers. The fact that the door is left open for Floyd being shot by an unkown assassin with a microscopic poison dart during the struggle does nothing to correct that.
There needs to be some concession to how real people will interpret the article beyond the purely technical. Shiningbell (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
All good points, indeed. As I said, a tough one, and one for which I just don't see a perfect path through. Honestly, I don't see why the title has to characterize it at all. simply Caylee Anthony seems like it would suffice. But then it falls even farther out from any particular convention maintained here with these sorts of cases. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The prosecution claimed it was a homicide. The defense claimed it was an accidental drowning. The defense admitted there was an attempt to conceal details. That alone does not make it a killing. The jury did not accept the prosecution's argument. We should not attempt to judge the nature of the death, just present the full story and let our readers decide.--agr (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One defendant being acquitted does not rule out that other defendants may be charged and convicted in the future.
Kire1975 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move was improperly closed

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

In the move discussion above just closed a few minutes ago, robertsky improperly concluded that Death of Caylee Anthony was a "stable" title without stating reasons. Per WP:"Murder_of"_articles#"Killing_of"_articles, If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated...should also not be titled "Death of [victim]", as this would be imprecise. Instead, the article should be titled "Killing of [victim]". Two different sources in the infobox state that the medical examiner ruled homicide as a cause of death. If Death of Caylee Anthony is imprecise, it cannot be stable. The page must be reverted back to Killing of Caylee Anthony. Kire1975 (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kire1975 the rationale is stated in my closing statement. Nothing is improper. – robertsky (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
It can't be both stable and imprecise. Kire1975 (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The stability comes from the duration at which title the article was/is hosted at. – robertsky (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Also note that the article was at "Death of" title mostly right from the creation of the article (with exception of disruptive moves) until 30 May 2022 when an undiscussed move to "Killing of" title was made. The discussion above proved that the undiscussed move was controversial. – robertsky (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above proved... Where exactly? How? If true, let there be a discussion here.
Please also address the question about how a page title can be both stable and imprecise.
Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The question of how the article should be titled pending the resolution of a discussion about its title is a separate issue from the closing of a discussion on the article title. I am addressing only the latter issue.

The discussion strikes me as having been closed at a point when further discussion could have been helpful, given that discussion had not continued for long and part of the rationale for closing discussion was that "Valid and equally strong points have been raised by all sides of the discussion". This seems like a context in which a RfC might have been helpful. Arllaw (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago27 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. this belongs at WP:MRV (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony → Killing of Caylee Anthony – Per WP:"Murder_of"_articles#"Killing_of"_articles, If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated...should also not be titled "Death of [victim]", as this would be imprecise. Instead, the article should be titled "Killing of [victim]". The medical examiner ruled it as a homicide according to reliable source. The previous move discussion was closed in error. A page with an imprecise title is not "stable." Kire1975 (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

For additional support see WP:DEATHS and especially this flowchart. Kire1975 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 
When a Medical Examiner (ME) conducts an autopsy, they attempt to ascertain the cause of death (e.g., bludgeoned with a heavy object, stabbed with an edged weapon, strangled by a cord around the neck, run over by moving vehicle, fatally shot, etc.), followed by pronouncing the manner of death (homicide, suicide, accident, natural, etc.) In the overwhelming majority of cases, they are able to determine the cause of death, and when that cause must follow from a human actor (such as a bludgeoning, stabbing, strangling, etc.), it is highly reliable and nearly indisputable when they say the manner of death was homicide. Unfortunately, in Caylee Anthony’s case, the ME was unable to determine a cause of death. Because her remains were found in a location that would have been impossible for her to have gotten to on her own volition (deceased inside a bag in a forested area, along with the presence of duct tape on or near the mouth), the ME reasonably concluded that a human being had to be involved in putting her body there, and because the child was not reported as missing, deception and foul play were likely to be involved. Accordingly, the ME decided to declare the manner of death was homicide so that the authorities could move forward despite being utterly unable to ascertain a cause of death. It’s very reasonable to suspect foul play (and homicide) in such a scenario for the purposes of the criminal justice system. However, it’s problematic for us to adopt the same approach in titling this article on Wikipedia. If we retitle from “Death of…” to “Killing of…”, we are then stating definitively in Wikivoice that this was a killing, when there was no proof presented at trial that it was. The actual facts of this situation are subtly but importantly nuanced, and when the ME can't determine the cause of death there is too much of a margin for error (looks like the jury saw it that way too). As a result, for this article and this particular set of facts, using a “Death of…” title is the most precise it can be for now. Maybe some day that will change. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
There was proof presented at trial that whoever killed her wrapped her up in a plastic bag until she was too skeletalized to determine the cause of death. The medical examiner certified it as a homicide. "Cause of death: Homicide..." appears at the bottom of the first page of the autopsy. That is all that is required according to WP:MURDEROF. Kire1975 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The bottom of the first page says "Cause of Death: Homicide by undetermined means", which means they ME could not determine how she died. The bottom of the second page and the rest of the third page make it clear that this is the best "Conclusion/Opinion" of the ME, as the exact cause of death could not be determined. Some quotes from the ME's conclusion/opinion from pages 2 and 3: "...the exact cause of death cannot be determined with certainty. The manner of death is an opinion based on available information...". In concludes with "It is, thus, my opinion that, although the cause of death cannot be determined with certainty, the manner of death is homicide." As I said above, the ME was unable to determine a cause of death and at best arrived at the opinion that the manner of death was homicide because the child's body could not have gotten to it's resting location without a human being (or beings) putting it there. That said, the proof presented at trial only proved that whoever put her there, put her there. There was no evidence presented at trial that proved someone killed her and then put her. Was she killed? Entirely possible. But it's also possible that she died and then was put there to hide her death as opposed to covering up a killing.
On a separate note, you've said that the ME's determination is all that is required according to WP:DEATHOF, but in the preceding paragraph to your excerpt in green above, it says "If the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as "murder" under Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise such a case should also not be labeled as "killing". If a new prime suspect emerges, this does not apply." So it can't be said that is all that is required; on the contrary, the essay you've cited is saying that under the circumstances of this case, it should not be titled "Killing of...", because the prime suspect was found not guilty by a jury that adjudicated the ME's conclusions along with all the other evidence presented by the prosecution. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion about the page being moved was just recently closed. Shouldn't there be a bit of breathing room for this? Auror Andrachome (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Given the facts in this case, perhaps you can explain how we can definitively arrive at the conclusion that it's impossible that Caylee's death was either natural or non-violent? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
My "support" vote for Death of Caylee Anthony → Killing of Caylee Anthony is based upon the green text, as highlighted in the nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
In the green text highlighted above, it says "by a coroner who ruled homicide as the cause of death." In this case, the coroner was unable to make a ruling on the cause of death. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
In addition to myself, six other editors at the November 24 vote were likewise convinced that circumstances surrounding the child's demise indicated that Killing of Caylee Anthony is the more-intuitive main header. Five other editors were not convinced. Since the November 24 votes were ultimately voided via the technicality of reverting an undiscussed move, this go-round gives editors another opportunity. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The cause of death was determined to be homicide by unknown means. The difficulty in finding a specific cause of death related to the condition of the body when it was located, but there was sufficient evidence to nonetheless determine the cause to be by homicide. Arllaw (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
"Homicide by unknown means" still means the cause of death was unknown, so I don't think we can say there was sufficient evidence to conclude her death definitively had to be a homicide (the jury didn't think so, nor was any proof presented at trial that it had to have been a homicide). However, looking more closely just now at the quoted (green) material from the nominator, I noticed there is another fundamental misunderstanding here. The quoted essay (WP:MURDEROF) does indeed say If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated..." as indicated. However, the preceding paragraph right before that says "If the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as "murder" under Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise such a case should also not be labeled as "killing". If a new prime suspect emerges, this does not apply." In this case, the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, then acquitted when the case was adjudicated. Based on the logic of the RM that started this thread (if we're using WP:MURDEROF as the guide here), the article should therefore neither be labeled "Murder of..." nor "killing of...", unless a new suspect gets indicted. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I am not interested in debating the facts of Caylee Anthony's death. I am going to state that your opinion as an editor, while valuable, is not a reliable source and does not substitute for reliable sourcing. It is also not correct to say that Casey Anthony's acquittal means that no homicide occurred -- just that Anthony's guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The acquittal of a defendant who denies responsibility for a homicide does not mean that no homicide occurred, and does not rule out the possibility that the homicide was committed by another person.
The quote you provide mistakenly suggests that there is a Wikipedia guideline that mandates a specific outcome, as there is no such guideline. It is also inconsistent with the article and flowchart that it claims to be summarizing. Essays that are provided as guidance can be helpful, but they can also be misleading and they are not policy. Arllaw (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
If a wrongfully accused defendant is rightfully acquitted, how is the coroner's determination that a homicide was committed not still valid? Whoever wrapped her up in bags and skeletonized her still committed homicide. Kire1975 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
How do we that whoever wrapped her up in bags killed her? What if she died, and then someone wrapped her up in order to hide the death (but hadn't killed her)? As discussed further up above, at best the ME was able to issue their opinion that the manner of death was homicide based on the highly suspicious circumstances, but unable to ascertain the cause of death, hence no certainty here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Editors should work from a neutral point of view. An editor has the right to disagree with reliably sourced information, or speculation about alternative scenarios to those that are reliably sourced, but those thoughts do not belong in a Wikipedia article. Arllaw (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
This isn't an NPOV situation, nor am I speculating original ideas here that weren't discussed in the reliable secondary sources. It was the defense that argued at trial that Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool and in a panic the body was moved and hidden to cover up her death. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Why does a new suspect need to be indicted to be considered to have emerged? Kire1975 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Indictment would mean the new suspect would have to be tried in a court of law just as Anthony was, but I'll dial that back a bit and just say that at a minimum, we at least need law enforcement to designate a "new prime suspect" (using the term from WP:DEATHOF). Have the authorities named a new suspect in Caylee Anthony's case? Or would you argue that someone can be a "new prime suspect" even though no law enforcement agency has designated them as such? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
It is unnecessary for there to be an identified suspect (new or old) to be identified or charged, or in fact for there to be any suspect at all, for a homicide to be labeled (as appropriate) a murder or a killing. See, e.g., Murder of Tupac Shakur, Murder of the Notorious B.I.G.. Arllaw (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Both of those murders included suspects who were identified by law enforcement (as opposed to no suspects at all). But given the facts of those particular cases (witnesses saw assailants openly gun them down in the street; indisputably beyond any reasonable doubt that these were homicides; even the preponderance of reliable secondary sources called their deaths "murders"), that makes sense and I doubt the Wikipedia community has any problem with keeping those titles in place given the circumstances. It's different in this case with no other suspects identified by law enforcement plus reasonable doubt after the ME was unable to determine the cause of death. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy close This is a clear attempt to revive a recently closed discussion. That belongs at WP:MR, not here.--agr (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close - this was already debated above and the RM closed. It doesn't look like any new information has been brought to light, just rearguing the same points again or disputing the close. But a fresh RM isn't the vehicle for that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

replacing name

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the passage:

" call made by Cindy, who said she had not seen Anthony for 31 days. According to what Cindy told the operators, Casey had given varied explanations as to Anthony's whereabouts before eventually saying she had not seen Anthony for weeks. Casey later called the police and falsely told a police dispatcher that Anthony had been kidnapped by a nanny on June 9. Casey was charged with first-degree murder in October 2008 and pled not guilty. On December 11, 2008, Anthony's skeletal remains were found with a blanket inside a laundry bag in a wooded area near the Anthony family's house. Investigative reports and trial testimony varied between duct tape being found near the front and mouth of the skull. The medical examiner listed Anthony's cause of death as "homicide by undetermined means"."

'Anthony' should be replaced with 'Caylee' 124.148.59.70 (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The article refers to Caylee Anthony as "Anthony" throughout—it's not just in that passage. That's per MOS:SAMESURNAME, which says to refer the subject of the article (here, the article is titled "Death of Caylee Anthony" ... so, the subject is Caylee Anthony) by their surname on subsequent references, and refer to other persons with the same surname by their given name on subsequent references.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Misspelt name

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

baez is spelt Biaz 2407:7000:840D:3A00:7B58:C154:9BE4:7D08 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Not according to Jose Baez (lawyer)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I meant - in the article Baez is misspelt as Biaz for one instance. Search article for 'Biaz' to find it. 2407:7000:840D:3A00:EDDD:5870:2C47:B430 (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I wish you had said that to begin with, done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome. 2407:7000:840D:3A00:FCA7:971D:66BB:3D80 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Please remove links to page Timeline of the Casey Anthony case

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Like in:

Investigation See also: Timeline of the Casey Anthony case

Those links redirect back, pages ware merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matkor (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Generally, it's good practice to add new talk page section to the bottom of a talk page—otherwise users might not notice your comment!
Great call—removing those links now.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the disappearance portion of the page, they keep calling the child Anthony which makes it sound like the child is a boy. Perhaps it would be better if you changed all the mentions of Anthony and there are quite a few, to the child's actual name ...Caylee. 2001:56A:FBE3:6E00:C0C:D307:7815:241B (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Using the last name is standard for this sort of thing. casualdejekyll 23:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In introduction, change line "Nancy Grace, who referred to Casey as "tot mom", was noted[by whom?] for the attention and corresponding publicity she gave the case" to "Nancy Grace, who referred to Casey as "tot mom", was notable for the attention and corresponding publicity she gave the case."

This gives context and already has sufficient references without having to reference outside sources. Megibbo2 (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done * Pppery * it has begun... 22:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_12&oldid=1217411049"