Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 7

Article not yet ready for Good article (GA) status
I would rather Eraserhead1 had asked the regular editors of this article here on the talk page whether or not we feel that this article is ready for GA review. Personally, I do not feel that it is ready. If it were, and as someone who is experienced in getting articles to GA status, I would have nominated it. There is still cleanup that is needed, such as better reference formatting, copyediting, and expansion in some parts.

I am not ready to meet the demands of a GA reviewer and would prefer that Eraserhead1 retract the GA nomination until the editors of this article get it further fixed up. I will ask Eraserhead1 to weigh in here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is so much interest that any cleanup issues can be addressed "on the fly", as I nominated it I'm happy to sort some reference issues out. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think, ah who cares what I think, therefor I am. My76Strat  talk  15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe GA eligibility/quality control may be hard maintain because of the relative instability of the page. See point two of Guide for nominating good articles. Marcus   Qwertyus   15:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good point and I thought about it before nominating, but given there are law articles in the queue going back to April I think its unlikely to be reviewed particularly quickly and/or can be skipped for a while until those concerns die down. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If a reviewer accepts the article, I'll help fix any issues they find. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Eraserhead1, I still feel that the nomination should be retracted. Why keep the nomination when an editor who has significantly worked on it objects? I could understand if you had significantly contributed to this article, but you have not. For the same reason that outside editors are not allowed to nominate articles for Featured article (FA) status unless they have significantly contributed to it, I feel the same should apply to GA nominations. I don't mean to bitch and complain, but most of the cleanup will fall on me. For example, I keep having to properly format references. GA reviewers usually want consistent reference formatting, and in ref templates. Right now, I'd have to go through a lot of them just to do them right. You are not taking into consideration the time and stress (such as disagreements with the reviewer) that GA reviews put on the editors of an article. I'm not ready to work overtime to meet the GA requirements, an opinion of a lone reviewer.


 * My76Strat, I'm not sure what you stated, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the ambiguity. I did start to say I do not think the article is in a maintenance phase and to nominate now would seem premature. IMO My76Strat  talk  16:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Flyer22 (ec--and apparently My76Strat) on this--this page is not stable enough to even be considered for GA status; given that a vocal and not trivial number of people don't even think the name is right, others who think it's far too long, some who still think there are BLP concerns...I don't see how we can undergo a review, much less consider it being promoted. Plus, even if you could somehow get it to GA status, that creates an additional problem--it tends to become an argument that the article is "good enough" and shouldn't be changed without extraordinary reasons. Given how recent this event is, the likelhood of additional info becoming available, and continued likely re-evaluations of just how much of this is really important, I don't think it's appropriate to try for a GA now. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I too think putting the article into the queue for GA right now is premature. All in good time... AzureCitizen (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a big issue then the nomination will be declined. Most of the issues raised here are going to be automatically sorted out in a couple of weeks as interest in the event dies down. If the article gets to near the top of the law article queue without being reviewed or it gets declined I have no issue and/or I will withdraw the nomination, lets see how it goes. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interest has already died down. Indeed, some issues have already been worked out (such as removing anything that may be a BLP violation), but this article is still currently unstable and needs work that should not have to be rushed due to a GA nomination. The name change issue, for example? That is a matter of regular editors here and is something that is continually debated. While "fixing up" happens in GA review, GA nomination is for articles that already meet the requirements. It is not for substantially fixing up an article that does not meet the requirements. And this one does not, as it's not even close to GA yet. Considering that you are disregarding the concerns expressed here, I wonder if one of us can remove the nomination...citing the agreement of editors here at the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely opposed for reasons mentioned, not to mention further dramatic developments, evidence which may yet arise. And hopefully the reviewers will note that most other article editors also oppose the nomination. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is too soon. Do not know any way to remove the nomination.  It probably doesn't matter anyway. Mugginsx (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

With this edit, I did advise the GA reviewers of the emerging consensus developing here. My76Strat talk  17:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment to the note parameter of the GAN template as manual edits to the WP:GAN page are automatically removed by the bot. If you wish to withdraw the nomination, just remove the GAN template from this talk page and the bost will take it off the WP:GAN page within about 30 minutes. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that insight. Needless to say, that was my bad. My76Strat  talk  18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the GA template. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, hopefully an object lesson was learned here that GA nominations should usually be a result of consensus among regular editors! Shirt  waist &#9742;  12:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that it should be, yes. Just as this is the case for FA nominations. Unless there is only one main editor of the article. And if there is only one main editor of the article, that editor should be asked about it. If you disagree, that's fine. It's just how I feel. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Case information missing from the article
I have been doing a lot of reading about this case and I came across a significant amount of information that is not in the article. I don't know if all of it should be added, but I would like to at least make a list where it can be discussed then crossed off if necessary. There are tons of references out there on all these topics - I just listed the first few I found. If I find more information that is not in the article, I will add it to the list. – Dream out loud (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Casey Anthony may have taken Caylee drowning story from fellow jail inmate
 * How Casey Anthony came up with the name Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez
 * Anthony's lie that she was the former girlfriend of Jeffrey Hopkins and a friend/co-worker named Juliette Lewis (mentioned in bullet list but not prose)
 * Anthony's lie about Eric Baker being the potential father of Caylee
 * George Anthony's mistress
 * These facts, but for one, are immaterial to the murder trial. The upcoming civil case with Zenita Fernandez-Gonzalez precluded the mentioned of her in any substative way during the trial, except to say that saying she was Caylee's nanny was a lie.Mugginsx (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This information is not about the murder trial. It's about Caylee's death and all the information surrounding it (including the trial).  I think the above information is essential and should be added.  Another one I left out is Carol Anthony's admittance to searching for "chloroform" on the internet, showing that it wasn't Casey who made the searches.  – Dream out loud  (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cindy Anthony saying that she made the chloroform searches (what is now said to be a single search) is already in the article, in two different spots. It's in the Criminal trial section and The Anthony family section, and, as seen in the latter, it is clear that Cindy Anthony lied on the stand about this. Flyer22 (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

News media is really despicable and new chloroform information
She's been declared not guilty, yet they pay people to track and observe her movements:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43806484#43806484

-- Avanu (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I watched the video. While I agree it certainly speaks volumes about our culture that significant media attention is focused on tracking her movements, including showing computer graphics depicting an airplane flying to Arizona and then on to two airports in California and speculating on where she is now, did anyone notice later in the video they reported an admission by the company that did the forensic research for the prosecution (that found there were 84 searches for "Chloroform") that the software was actually faulty, and instead there was just one search? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did. It was bad luck on the prosecution's part, despite the fact that I think they did a wonderful job with what they had - zero foresenics.  When I lived in Florida I head someone on TV once say that if you ever wanted to dump a body, Florida is the state and a swampy area, which is what most of Florida is, is the place. Mugginsx (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You could also say it was bad luck for the defendant - much hay was made of the "84 chloroform searches" in the media trial (Grace, et al.) A lot of people heard that and thought she has to be guilty of premeditated murder. AzureCitizen (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Who cares if the news media "is really despicable," which is an opinion anyway? I'm tired of people blaming the media for most Americans believing she's guilty. I'm sure most Canadians believe she's guilty too. It could be due to the fact that she didn't report her child's death for 31 days, went partying not long after her child's death, told a multitude of lies, the smell of death (which is unmistakable) in the trunk of her car identified by several people (including her own parents) and search dogs, the chloroform search (one or 84) combined with chloroform levels found in the trunk, and the way her child's remains were found (which is indicative of murder according to experts). If there hadn't been so much incriminating evidence pointing right at her, then most people would not believe she's guilty. It's a wonder she wasn't found guilty, considering that Scott Peterson was found guilty on far less circumstantial evidence. But then again, this case is more reminiscent of the O. J. Simpson murder trial. And by that example, Not Guilty does not equal Innocent. I say the media gets to poke around in her life just as much as they get to in any celebrity's life. And she is a celebrity now. JacobTrue (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone have any thoughts on where the 84:1 discrepancy might best be addressed in the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If reliable, then it could go in the Evidence section. It's not as though the Evidence section should only deal with reports about the evidence before and during the trial. New information about the evidence should also be placed there. The alternative would be placing it in The Anthony family section, beside the fact Cindy Anthony was reported as having perjured herself regarding the searches and that she had been facing perjury charges. JacobTrue (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice this thread until after I inserted a reference to the NYTimes article on the 84:1 discrepency immediately after the claim is made in the article. Perhaps there is a better place to put it, but I would say that we need some mention of it there otherwise it is a BLP violation, IMHO.LedRush (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong where you put it, because this admission was not a part of the Criminal trial. It's not a WP:BLP violation to not have it there. You also repeated a line. JacobTrue (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a BLP violation to leave in provably false statements, even in a section such as this. As I indicated above, I had no problem with moving the information to another section, but some mention that this information was later contradicted by the same witness who put it forward should be mentioned.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was some mention of the software problems during the trial. If you remember the technician witness' name you might find it here:  http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/casey-anthony-trial-witness-videos/ .  Maybe you could put the new info under the old? Mugginsx (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, let's not soapbox on our personal opinions on guilt or innocence of Casey or any other parties, except where directly relates to putting in relevant material (like Krystal Holloway). Anyway, this section again points to the need for a clearly separate "Aftermath" or some such section for all the real news that inevitably arises. Is it my imagination or is there also no info on all the death threats vs Casey and even threats or attacks on those with same name or who look like her? (I must see if I can find that WP:RS that said Nancy Grace was calling for vigilante justice, cause she was denying it up and down on Pierce Morgan, I think it was.) So a lot of interesting trial related issues that doubtless will continue and need a proper format. One of these days I'll provide my updated alternative, per first draft on restructuring above, but if someone wants to get bold and bushy tailed in the meantime... CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We are talking about software problems news which came in today on the news. It seems that the only thing you know how to do is chastise others.  You do not understand this article or the legal information in it and you do not sufficiently look to proper sources to improve the article.  You talk about re-structuring an article you do not even understand most of.  You do not know how to be polite even when people bend over backward as these editors have, to be nice to you.  They have declined you re-structuring plan and so do I. It does not have to be re-structured.  It is a joint effort which several editors have put together and politely agreed to disagreed on while suggesting alternatives.  That is the way Wiki is supposed to work.  Not for someone to come in and say they are going to re-structure it without consensus and when told by editors other and myself that it is not appropriate how you want to re-structure because of the type of article this is and the information it contains, what do you say?  You say, I'll do it a little at a time and no one will notice.  It's here on the talk page if you have not deleted it.  What nerve you have. Mugginsx (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * LedRush, I doubt it's a BLP violation to keep mention of the later admission out of the Criminal trial section, when this information was excluded from the criminal trial and we have just now found out about it. It fits much better in the Evidence section where AzureCitizen put it.


 * Carolmooredc, I disagree that this section "points to the need for a clearly separate 'Aftermath' or some such section for all the real news that inevitably arises." As I stated, there is no need for a new section unless we need one. We do not need a separate section to relay this information. We do not need a separate section to relay that Casey Anthony has received death threats. It can go in The Anthony family section. It's clearly not in the article because it was not added yet, quite possibly because there's no telling what may be viewed as a BLP violation in this article. The only reason her media offers are not included in this article, for example, is due to what was stated at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 4. Things being excluded from this article doesn't signal a problem with its setup. Things not being included is either due to people being lazy or those things having been discussed as ones that should be excluded. And, no, Nancy Grace has not called for vigilante justice. Everyone at HLN has advised people against it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the things User:Flyer22 writes about above do point to need for Casey Anthony article. Anyway, this definitely is something which needs to be included in the trial section since defense attorneys charge - and the prosecution witness seems to support - the contention the prosecution withheld from the witness other evidence that there was only ONE chloroform search Sun Sentinel article:
 * Last week, CacheBack CEO John Bradley posted a statement on his website, acknowledging that the 84-search result was an error, and criticizing the state for its use of flawed data. It was Bradley who introduced those results as a witness for the defense. On the stand, he was asked to testify about a CacheBack report "that I had never seen before," he wrote on his website. He was not told, he claims, that a NetAnalysis search had returned a different result, and did not hear about the other search until it was referenced by the defense under direct examination. He realized that the CacheBack data was incorrect, and produced a corrected report, Bradley's statement said. However, he says his attempts to return to Florida to correct his testimony were rebuffed.
 * [Continuation of article added later since others don't understand this happened DURING the trial NOT after:]
 * "Since the fate of woman's life could lay in this critical piece of information, I did everything in my power to remedy the situation, or at least mitigate the issue — once I became aware of it," he wrote. In his lengthy statement, Bradley, who could not be reached Tuesday evening, criticized sheriff's investigators who he said "selectively omitted" information about the NetAnalysis report.'
 * This obviously belongs in the relevant section on Chloroform evidence in the trial section not in the evidence section. Which again points out clunkiness of having separate evidence from trial section -with investigation section having some overlap and some non-trial material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you feel there is a need for a Casey Anthony article, then make your voice known at Talk:Casey Anthony, where discussion is being had about it. It doesn't look like one will be created any time soon, but I must point out that anything perceived as a BLP issue in this article will not be perceived as any less of a BLP issue in an article dedicated to the woman herself. In fact, that would only make such a thing even more of a BLP issue (to those who call "BLP violation" anyway).


 * And, no, I don't see any reason that Bradley's admission belongs in the Trial section, where it would be misplaced (non-chronological) when taking into the fact that this was not presented at trial. The Trial section details things that happened at trial, and I feel it should stay that way. Bradley coming out with this information did not. It had no bearing on the case. Why have our visitors read the trial as it happened, except for one thing that is out of place? It was not something that was presented at trial. Suffice it to say, it belongs in the Evidence section where it was placed, where other things not presented at trial are at. And I already agreed with making clear which evidence was presented at trial and which evidence was not. Simple subheadings would fix this. Flyer22 (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would go there because if a reader just reads about the trial, they wouldn't know about this pretty egregious mistake. Allowing clearly erroneous statements which defame individuals to stand is a clear violation of BLP, and it needs to be remedied.  As I've made clear above, we don't need the whole spiel, but a quick mention that this information was later contradicted would be enough.LedRush (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not seeing it as a BLP issue at all. Nothing in WP:BLP even comes close to arguing that presenting the Trial section in chronological order would be a BLP issue in this case. It's already contradicted in the Evidence section, which comes before the Trial section. If a reader fails to read some parts of the article, that is on that reader. Not us. Not seeing a BLP issue. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaving in erroneous information which implicates a person in a crime completely separate from the facts which prove that information to be false significantly increases "the possibility of harm to living subjects" and therefore "must ... be considered when exercising editorial judgment".  I don't see why a simple phrase saying something like "Bradley later confirmed that his analysis was erroneous and that the person who conducted the search did so only once."  Something like that, not that.  It's a short, truthful sentence that will clear up the possible issues.LedRush (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't be convinced that it's a BLP issue, per what I stated above. I don't see why a simple phrase saying something like "Bradley later confirmed that his analysis was erroneous and that the person who conducted the search did so only once" should be presented in the Trial section when it makes it seem as though this was presented at trial. It was not. Therefore, I am not seeing why it should be there. If we were leaving this information out completely, then I could see your "BLP violation" claim. But as it stands, I do not. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have repeated many times, despite BLP policy, that you don't see the issue. However, the question now is, even though you don't see it, why can't a simple fix be added?  I made it very clear that my suggested sentence was just a quick suggestion and improvements could be made.  If you want to say "After the trial, Bradley confirmed..." that would be fine too.  Seeing as that is your only articulated objection to the info, hopefully that will fix the problem.  If not, could you provide something other than a flat-out refusal?LedRush (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was and error - or prosecutorial misconduct as is alleged in this case - it obviously belongs in the trial section where the false allegation is made, for BLP reasons. Just like George's many various denials would belong right after any trial questions where he gave an answer. What's good for goose is good for gander. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LedRush, you have repeatedly cited BLP policy for something I do not feel it supports -- that we must mention something that occurred after the trial in the Trial section...when this information is already covered right above the Trial section. What you view as a "simple fix," I view as a "simple problem" -- disrupting chronology to include something that is already covered in the more appropriate place. If we go by your view of "BLP violation," stuff like this could apply to plenty of decent, good and featured Wikipedia articles, where something thought to be true about a person or their words is not clarified/contradicted until later in the article. And though I cannot provide any examples right off the top of my head at the moment, I have seen it enough times. As for my ability to articulate, I have articulated my objections quite well, thank you. But since you seem to be the only one so hard-pressed on including this information in the Trial section, aside from CarolMooreDC, I suggest you start a section about it here on this talk page and see if you can gain consensus to include it there. Because I will not agree.


 * And, Carolmooredc, no, "George's many various denials" that occur after the trial would not belong there in the Trial section, just as the jurors' opinions about the case do not belong there (whether during or after trial). The Trial section is not for including post-trial comments, except for the verdict and sentence; if it were, just about every comment by the people involved in the trial could go there. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22: Yes, I think we do need to start a running list of things that would validate a separate Casey article. Obviously various editors have been concerned/confused/etc about. Reread: George's many various denials would belong right after any trial questions where he gave an answer. I was specifically talking about the trial. And you have said before that evidence section needs to be conflated into the trial, where it was presented? And other evidence put under investigation? That's what makes sense and if people will stop jumping on me I'll show you just what I mean. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I stated, if you feel there is a need for a Casey Anthony article, then make your voice known at Talk:Casey Anthony, where discussion is being had about it. The editors against it don't seem confused about the matter at all. About the George comparison, if you were talking about anything he stated during trial, then fine. But if you were speaking of anything he may state after the trial, then, no, I don't agree that it belongs there. I'm saying the Evidence section should be divided into two subsections -- one titled Presented at trial, and the other titled Excluded from trial. That, or we simply clarify in text what evidence was presented at trial and what evidence was not. I only see one person jumping on you, Carolmooredc. And this back and forth between you two definitely needs to stop. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for "needs to stop" and that would help make it easier to think about the evidence issues and alternatives you discuss. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This, no doubt, is out of place here but something to remember in going along is that lawyer cannot be sued for defamation or liable for anything said in court. The are allowed to say anything outrageous to try to win for their client.  You all probably know that anyway but something to remember when you evaluate lawyer's words during a trial. Mugginsx (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Defense billing state for trial
I just saw this news article. The defense is billing the state of Florida for their (defense) costs in defending Casey. Here is the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-defense-team-charges-state-147000-trial/story?id=14125305

This could be mentioned in the 'after the trial' part of the article where the $4.5 million price for prosecution is mentioned. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should the name of the article be changed to "Casey Anthony trial'?
Should the name of the article be changed to "Casey Anthony trial'? Angryapathy (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: What title this article should go by has been extensively discussed/debated on the talk page, as seen at, , , and. Some are for, against, or in between, and this RfC has been divided up into three sections. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This RfC is flawed in that it only presents two options. There have been at least two other suggested article titles: Casey Anthony controversy or Casey Anthony murder allegations. They should have been included in the RfC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A Quest For Knowledge's, it's possible that Angryapathy missed your suggestions. And even so, they are suggestions. They don't have to go at the top of the RfC when only one person (me) responded to them. There's a discussion section below, and that's where you originally placed your comment. Above, when I was the only one to respond to your suggestions (at ), I stated, "Not only do those proposals stray away from the death of Caylee and the trial, they would invite a lot of negativity being added to this article." We should stay as close to WP:COMMONNAME as possible and not turn this into a controversy article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These are the only two options that have actually had discussion. As Flyer states, you suggested the alternates, but no discussion was started from that. Angryapathy (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support changing to "Casey Anthony trial"

 * 1) The vast majority of the content of this article is about the Casey Anthony trial, and very little of it is about the Death of Caylee Anthony. As I have stated above (In section "By the Numbers"), a precursory look at the character count of the article shows that approximately 90% of the content of the article is about the trial, and about 10% is about Caylee or her death. I understand that the article was created about the death, but looking at the article currently we need to title it according to its current content. Angryapathy (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with what Angryapathy is saying. This article needs the name changed and this seems to be what a lot of the reliable sources are calling this.  Let's please give this article the proper title which I think this would be.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I support changing the name to "Casey Anthony trial", as the trial is the notable event. A death, even while newsworthy, isn't inherently notable or encyclopedic. The majority of coverage on this event focusing on the trial of Casey Anthony is indicative of this fact. It may seem callous, but Caylee Anthony's death was not noteworthy in an encyclopedic manner (i.e. she was not famous prior to her death, she did not die at a public event, there were not notable events leading to her death etc). If an editor disagrees with the removal of something from this article, the editor should revert and discuss. That applies whether the removal is a result of the article's title or almost any other reason.  Chickenmonkey  20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I support changing to Casey Anthony trial, similar to O. J. Simpson murder case. Menkatopia (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose changing to "Casey Anthony trial"

 * 1) The article covers a lot more than just the criminal trial - which only lasted about a month. This article covers a 3 year time span (and counting) and includes content not part of the criminal trial.  It also covers Caylee's disappearance, the search and rescue effort to find her, Caylee's Law, etc.  Plus, there's also a civil trial coming up.  We briefly tried renaming the article to Casey Anthony trial and the result was that editors started deleting out content that wasn't part of the criminal trial.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And it makes no sense to me to delete Caylee's Law out of this article, no matter the title. Caylee's Law has to do with the trial, in that it is what happened in the aftermath of the trial, and also appears to be due to the "Not Guilty" verdict. There was no Caylee's Law proposal until after the "Not Guilty" verdict. So to delete it as "not part of the trial" makes zero sense to me. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree with Quest. The article probably needs a better title, but "Casey Anthony trial" ain't it. If there wasn't this obsession over "1 event notability", the obvious title would be simply "Casey Anthony". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment How about something generic for now until we see where this is all going to go?  I was thinking something along the lines of Casey and Caylee Anthony.  After we know what other sources are going to say after things settle down a bit than we can have another discussion about a real title for this article.  Just a thought... -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd accept that as a compromise. I'd also accept Casey Anthony controversy or Casey Anthony murder allegations.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep as is for now, ala the Lindbergh kidnapping article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it more, there is also the consideration - as someone else mentioned - that there will be others implicated; especially in a coverup of an accident should Casey actually tell that story and present evidence. And of course all concerned still could be prosecuted for such a coverup or at least improper disposal of a body. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing who else could be implicated, especially since it would mean that Casey Anthony lied...again. This would mean she lied about Caylee drowning, got away with it, then (with evidence to back it up) points the finger at someone else...and now they get tried for Caylee's death while she is scott free? Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The article should stay in its current name. If it was named "trial of" or similar it would be an "OK" for users to delete material.. also it would mean a continuation of never ending talk page discussions on every little edit.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm leaning towards oppose since a portion of the article wouldn't fit under the proposed name. If new evidence came up on a different suspect, where would that be published if not in this article? If there's enough content on the mother's trial for a fork, then let's do that, but the death appears to be the central topic here.  Night w   10:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: From everything I've read above and below, there cannot be an article on the trial without discussing the death of Caylee Anthony. That's pretty obvious either way. How can we have two articles on the same thing? And make no mistake about it, it would be the same thing. If we split out all the trial stuff from this article, then there is barely anything left in this one. How can her death be discussed without discussing that someone was put on trial for her death and the public outrage at the verdict over her death? And if we were to leave all the trial information in this one but create another article dedicated only to the trial information, that is plain silly and goes against Content forking. There has to be a good reason for a content fork. There is no good reason in this case, certainly not when there is so little information on Caylee's death and the trial and aftermath are very much tied to it. 50.17.56.96 (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree. If that be the case then, the current name should be kept as that's the central theme.  Night w   08:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) This article is about the disappearance and death of Caylee Anthony and is properly titled (has been for 3 years). My76Strat  talk  15:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) "Casey Anthony trial" is too limited in scope.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree completely with SarekOfVulcan. The trial is not the intended subject of the article, no matter how much of the content relates directly to it. Focus should be kept where it belongs; Caylee Anthony, her death and the insane aftermath. TerminusEst (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish that made sense; No matter how much the content relates directly to the trial, we shouldn't title the article on the trial? Why wouldn't you title an article reflecting the content? Angryapathy (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no perfect answer here, but I see no compelling reason not to follow BLP1E's guidance: "... it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." The event here is the death of the child. The mother's trial revolved around that death. The fact that the mother was found not guilty makes BLP policy all the more relevant.--agr (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Word "trial" is too limiting. Better is a broader title such as "Casey Anthony" or "Casey Anthony death".  --Noleander (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it you mean "Caylee Anthony," Noleander. As for Casey Anthony, whether there should be such an article as that here at Wikipedia is being discussed at Talk:Casey Anthony. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Somewhat neutral. Because while I prefer the title Casey Anthony trial, that also turns this article mostly back into a BLP (WP:BLP), which gives some people the license to claim BLP and WP:UNDUE violations and such. And though this article is mostly about Casey Anthony either way, things such as a comprehensive reactions section, Caylee's Law and Caylee's Song (and even an image of Caylee) seem to be more accepted under the Death of Caylee Anthony title. But I do not feel that a separate article is needed for either topic. As I stated above: "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. Plus, information about the death itself is small. But all things related to the death -- pre-trial, trial, and post-trial -- is significantly bigger. The only thing I don't agree with Chickenmonkey on is that the initial media reaction/coverage should be in a different spot. All of the Publicity and media coverage should be in one spot, in my opinion, and this is what I did (making a Before the trial subsection and During and after the trial subsection). The previous formatting of this article just wasn't in line with how Wikipedia articles should be. As for the title, I don't care much either way, but it does make more sense to me that the article be titled the Casey Anthony trial. However, if editors are going to be removing things from this article based on faulty BLP violation reasons, such as an adequate reflection of the public and media's response to the trial and verdict, then I support the Death of Caylee Anthony title. The article still has to do with BLP either way, though, because it still documents the lives and/or responses of/from living people (the defense and prosecution, the Anthony family, the jurors)." Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How is something more of a BLP violation based on the title of an article? If something violates BLP, it doesn't matter what the title of the article is. If you are writing about a person, BLP applies, regardless of the title. Angryapathy (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just relaying what I saw, Angryapathy. Titling this article to the Death of Caylee Anthony translates to "it's not about a living person anymore but rather a deceased person," which also allows for an image of Caylee (see the image discussion here: Files for deletion/2011 July 8). Even though this article is mostly about Casey Anthony either way, editors were acting as though having things such as Caylee's Law and Caylee's Song, etc. in this article adds WP:UNDUE or BLP issues (for example, at least two songs about Caylee were written due to anger over the verdict). This is all how it appeared to me at the BLP Noticeboard and when Caylee's Law and other things were removed. But if the article is about Caylee instead of Casey, then things such as Caylee's Law and Caylee's Song are not undue. It's not considered victimization of Casey if there is all this coverage (which mostly relates to criticism of the verdict) in an article about Caylee. At least that's how I saw things. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(Some comments in this section regarding Recentism was moved from "Support" to "Discussion" by Angryapathy)

It's true that this article suffers from a severe case of WP:RECENTISM but renaming the article isn't going to fix that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't really agree with the recentism claim. As others have stated, the article is fairly balanced and is simply covering things comprehensively/accurately. Nothing has truly been overblown, by even just looking through reliable sources that document the interest in this case as one on a national level. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quest, are you saying, as per WP:RECENT, that as time goes on, the weight of the content of this article will then shift back to "The death of Caylee Anthony"? Because I highly doubt that in the future this article will shift away from the Trial and the events surrounding the trial. Angryapathy (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying we have a disproprionate amount of attention/detail to the last month (or so) versus the previous 3 years. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that's to be expected, though, A Quest For Knowledge, given that the media has given more attention to the trial and aftermath of the trial. If there's more to add about the search for Caylee and more we can do to put more attention on Caylee in this article, I am all for that. I just tightened up the Public and media reactions section. If anything else in this article needs tightening up, without losing significantly relevant detail, we can do that too. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that the higher amount of detail/coverage is due to the fact that more information is now available due to a higher degree of scrutiny by the sources. It's not a matter of recentism, it's a matter of reflecting the level of coverage and the information available due to that coverage has changed the focus from the death to the trial. Angryapathy (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I argued something like that at the BLP Noticeboard, but most of them didn't care to hear it. And though I disagreed with most of what they were saying, I also listened to them, and changed some things (like downsizing the Public and media reactions section some moments ago as much as I could without losing significantly relevant detail). But there was never a BLP issue there, as far as I'm concerned. The only valid BLP complaint I saw was mentioning that Cindy Anthony may face perjury charges; since it wasn't confirmed that she would, "may" was seen as a BLP issue, and I tweaked that. It's also been scaled down since then. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that it's not unexpected, but it's still bad. A good article should be well-rounded.  Now, if you guys want to split out the trial section into a separate Casey Anthony trial, I'd be all for that.  Then you can have more detail about the trial (if you want) and then this article could summarize the trial article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How can the article be well-rounded on the matter of including just as much about Caylee's death when there isn't as much information about Caylee's death itself? The trial information shouldn't be cut in half just to make the article half reflect information about Caylee's death. And splitting the article isn't the solution either. How can you only cover Caylee's death without information about the trial, which also has to do with her death? Even Caylee's Law has to do with the outcome of the trial, since it appears that it was a frustrated response to the Not Guilty verdict. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Flyer22: There's more to cover than the death and trial. There's hardly any attention given to the search operation.  You should do a Google news search for 2008.  There's a lot of fascinating material left out of the article.  Did you know that the Anthony family set up a helpfindcaylee.com web site?  Take a look at this timeline.  Is everything listed at least mentioned in the article?   I'd love to get a image of the flier they were handing out into the article.  (It's right before July 15th 2008 in the timeline.)  I think that says a lot more than the current image of Kaylee.  Unfortunately, the article is being bogged down by arguments about the article titles, BLP1E, deleting images, etc.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that information needs to be in this article, A Quest For Knowledge. I was only saying that I don't see how this article can cover just as much about the other aspects of the case when there isn't as much about these other aspects of the case. I definitely want the aspects you just mentioned in the article, though.  Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename article "Casey Anthony": As I wrote in the BLP discussion: I agree the article is problematic, starting with the actual title Death of Caylee Anthony. I would like to point out there is a Category:People acquitted of murder with 115 articles about individuals, only a few as famous as Casey Anthony. Therefore the article should be about her. (Note that even the Lindbergh kidnapping article is not named for the child, Charles Lindbergh, Jr.) Obviously Casey will continue to be in the news, especially if she does tell a story of a dysfunctional family, an accidental drowning and some parental knowledge of (or demand for?) a coverup (because family members in Florida are prosecuted in child drowings?), and then crazy behavior as a result, which is what the defense obviously insists is the truth. And which theories have been profered by some media pundits since the verdict. Who knows what other news worthy (or at least notable) things will happen next? (See some of the bios under that category.) A balanced BLP can present facts, trial evidence, and WP:RS commentary on both. The question is, is HLN and Nancy Grace, WP:RS? In any case, much more reliable sources obviously have commented on and explored the case in the last week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't go through all of them, but many of the people in Category:People acquitted of murder are either notable for something other than being acquitted of murder or not living. Casey Anthony is neither notable for anything outside of this event nor deceased. "Obviously she will continue to be in the news" is not a valid argument to create an article on an otherwise non-notable person. If she does tell any kind of story--and it is notable and/or encyclopedic--then perhaps she would warrant an article. "Newsworthy" things are not necessarily "encyclopedic". There currently is no reason to focus an article solely on Casey Anthony. The trial is the encyclopedic event. Using Wikipedia to document Casey Anthony's life, at this point, would possibly amount to exploitation as she isn't a public figure and is not notable for anything outside of a single event.  Chickenmonkey  05:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc, as I also wrote in the Noticeboard discussion: According to most editors at the article, the article is not problematic. The title of the article is the only main issue all editors keep fighting over at that article, which you just brought up now. But according to most of those same editors, the article is fair and balanced. It includes sources from various reliable sources, not just HLN and Nancy Grace or even mostly HLN and Nancy Grace. Nancy Grace is barely even used as a source in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it necessarily has to be changed immediately, but consider it down the road. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How about "Casey Anthony controversy"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, how would that title accurately describe this topic? How would it not invite nothing but a whole bunch of negativity about Casey Anthony, since it would be titled "controversy"? The two debated titles, I do find accurate. Because the death cannot be discussed without Casey and the trial, and the trial cannot be discussed without the death and Caylee. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a controversy, there was an actual trial, remember? Casey Anthony or Casey Anthony trial would be good in my opinion at least. ;)  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... It was/is a controversy...technically, but "controversy" doesn't adequately reflect this topic. Some of you feel that the Death of Caylee Anthony doesn't either, but it's a lot more adequate that "controversy." Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if I can summerize everyone's positions: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't name it Casey Anthony because she's not notable outside the 1 event.
 * We can't name it Casey Anothony trial because the article covers more than just the trial.
 * We can't name it Casey Anthony controversy because the it invites negativity and it wasn't a controversy.
 * We can't name it Death of Caylee Anthony because the article isn't really about Caylee.
 * That's pretty much it, except I am one of the ones (or rather "the only one") who feels that either title -- Death of Caylee Anthony or Casey Anthony trial -- is fine...because "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."


 * I just don't get it. I don't get why either title is viewed as problematic, and I never will. Further fixing up this article is more important to me than the title. If the title was very misleading or just plain wrong, I'd have a problem with it. But there is nothing misleading about it being titled the Death of Caylee Anthony. All the information in this article has a lot to do with her death. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, listen...this does not need a "crystal ball". Casey Anthony is LIKELY TO REMAIN NOTABLE BEYOND THIS SINGLE EVENT... Remember? Book deals, her whole persona, etc. There's no way that Casey Anthony will EVER be a "low-profile individual" after this. Ever! This is not like the alleged murderer Levi Aron who (allegedly) kidnapped and killed that Hasidic boy some days ago in Brooklyn New York. That guy is likely to remain "low-profile" beyond the single event of killing that kid. But Casey Anthony is obviously (especially at this point) DIFFERENT than someone like that. The name of this article should change already, and should center more around Casey herself, not just the "death of Caylee Anthony." This is a bit silly now. Wiki-lawyering and uptightness and over-scrupulosity can be insufferable at times. NPOV should always be strived for, but let's get real about this "BLP" thing already. Casey is notable...big time now...beyond just the death of her daughter, and is very very HIGH-PROFILE IN GENERAL NOW. Just my take. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For the time being I agree. It's in that vague territory between notoriety of Casey and the death of the child, ala the Lindbergh kidnapping article. (Note that convicted kidnapper Bruno Hauptmann has his own article, so a Casey article in the future remains a possibility.) So I'd say keep it as is and will vote for such above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Carol.  The title should have the word "Casey" in it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify the timeline of this article's titles:
 * 1) The article was first created as "Caylee M Anthony" August 10, 2008
 * 2) The article was moved to "Caylee Anthony" August 13, 2008
 * 3) The article was moved to "Caylee Anthony disappearance" September 25, 2008
 * 4) The article was moved to "Caylee Anthony murder" December 19, 2008
 * 5) The article was moved to "Caylee Anthony homicide" December 20, 2008
 * 6) The article was moved to "Death of Caylee Anthony" June 1, 2011
 * 7) The article was moved to "Casey Anthony trial" July 7, 2011
 * 8) The article was moved to "Death of Caylee Anthony" July 10, 2011

As can be seen, this article was clearly inappropriately titled for much of its existence. When it was created, it should not have been created. Caylee Anthony did not meet notability requirements, in August 2008. However, by the time it was brought up for deletion, in November 2008, the event had become notable, resulting in the article properly not being deleted. Following that, the move to "Caylee Anthony murder" and then "Caylee Anthony homicide" were entirely incorrect, as the death cannot properly be described as neither a "murder" nor a "homicide", even now--let alone in 2008. That incorrect title remained for two and a half years. Any discussion of a "long-standing" title isn't exactly genuine, as the longest standing title this article has had was incorrect. The argument for returning the article to "Casey Anthony trial" has been made countless times, so I will only shortly reiterate it: the encyclopedic event is the trial. Much of the reliable sources' coverage of this event has been in relation to the case against Casey Anthony and her subsequent trial. A death is not inherently notable, even if it has been newsworthy.  Chickenmonkey  06:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, her death was ruled a homicide by Dr. Garavaglia, the medical examiner. Thus, it would seem reasonable if that word was included in the title, but I'm just rambling... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're correct; the medical examiner did rule the death to be a "homicide by undetermined means". It would be reasonable for the word "homicide" to have been in the title.  Chickenmonkey  07:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Being ruled a homicide makes it no less of a death than if it had been ruled an accident. The article is appropriately titled and the article prose is where enunciation of such detail is more appropriate. IMO My76Strat  talk  07:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the death is not the encyclopedic event; the trial is. However, I've stated that opinion too many times, already. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 07:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article had the word "homicide" in its title, wouldn't that make it non-neutral...since it would go against the defense's claim that Caylee's death was an accident? It would definitely bias the article in a way. Flyer22 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also think it would. However, that presupposes the content determines the name (after the article is written). I guess its a case of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" They are both related, as stated so many times, so, shrug. Maybe both names, like "death and subsequent trial". I don't know...I'm just rambling again... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mug shot for the lede of timeline article
Hashem sfarim and I have been having a polite conversation at the talk page for the Timeline of Casey Anthony case daughter article with regard to whether or not the Casey Anthony mugshot is the appropriate photo for the lede. It may be, or may not be, as we differ in our perspective, so we thought we'd ask other editors to comment if they're interested there. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: issued resolved. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Trial section error
The trial section contains the information presented at trial that says that Anthony searched about chloroform 84 times. This information is now provably false, as we've addressed in the evidence section. However, leaving in erroneous information which implicates a person in a crime completely separate from the facts which prove that information to be false significantly increases "the possibility of harm to living subjects" and therefore "must ... be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Therefore, the current content is a BLP violation.

I suggest we add a simple phrase saying something like "After the trial, Bradley confirmed that his analysis was erroneous and that the person who conducted the search did so only once." Something like that, not that. It's a short, truthful sentence that will clear up the possible issues.

The only objection to this proposal has been one that says this information disrupts the chronological flow of the article. I don't see this point, and believe that my correction would make it clear to readers what has actually occurred (and not misleading them as it does now) and address any BLP concerns.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This info was available to prosecutors during the trial and they rebuffed a witnesses attempt to correct his statement. If there is much more foot dragging on putting all this info in the trial section, it becomes a serious BLP matter. Again, per the Florida Sentinal, Bradley wrote: He realized that the CacheBack data was incorrect, and produced a corrected report, Bradley's statement said. However, he says his attempts to return to Florida to correct his testimony were rebuffed. Since the fate of woman's life could lay in this critical piece of information, I did everything in my power to remedy the situation, or at least mitigate the issue — once I became aware of it," he wrote. In his lengthy statement, Bradley, who could not be reached Tuesday evening, criticized sheriff's investigators who he said "selectively omitted" information about the NetAnalysis report. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, I can't be convinced that it's a BLP issue. I don't see why this information should be presented in the Trial section when it was not presented at trial and is already covered in the Evidence section. It is not misleading people. If people happen to skip over the section before it that explains that this information was excluded from trial, then that is on them. Not us. Excluding this information from the Trial section is hardly any different than excluding the other information that was not presented at trial. LedRush has repeatedly cited BLP policy for something I do not feel it supports -- that we must mention something that occurred after the trial in the Trial section...when this information is already covered. If we go by LedRush's view of "BLP violation," stuff like this could apply to plenty of decent, good and featured Wikipedia articles, where something thought to be true about a person or their words is not clarified/contradicted until later in the article. And though I cannot provide any examples right off the top of my head at the moment, I have seen it enough times. The Trial section is not for including post-trial comments, except for the verdict and sentence; if it were, just about every comment by the people involved in the trial could go there. A solution would be to divide the Evidence section into two subsections -- one titled Presented at trial, and the other titled Excluded from trial. That way, readers will clearly see that they are skipping over something that was excluded from trial if they decide to skip. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not asking for in-depth retelling of information included elsewhere. I am talking about an extremely brief mention of the actual facts.  And I would like to see examples where highly incriminating evidence which is later found to be unequivocally not true is included about a person accused of murder.LedRush (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion would be to re-word the first sentence something like this: "Information retrieved from a flawed software detection system was presented by Prosecutor at trial and erroneously show that someone in the Anthony family had searched for chloroform several times...." those being the key words to put in somewhere, then referecnce it with most recent information.  I believe it could stay in the Trial section if explained upfront that it was flawed information presented at trial. Mugginsx (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant Trial Section. 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It has to be kept in the Evidence section either way, since that section is discussing evidence collected against Casey Anthony. The Criminal trial section, on the other hand, is a repeat of what happened at trial...which is why I'm against this information being placed there. That, and because I don't feel that it needs to be in both spots. And, yes, while Bradley claims the prosecution knew this during trial, the point is...it was not presented to the jury during trial (something the Evidence section makes clear and could make clearer with my suggested subheadings, subheadings that were already being discussed as needed). Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. OK. Mugginsx (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated above, I am not asking for in-depth retelling of information included elsewhere. I am talking about an extremely brief mention of the actual facts.LedRush (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I believe that it was mentioned that the software was flawed at trial but by Baez. I know it was not mentioned in closing statements, and that was significant in and of itself.  The video tapes might show if it was presented, but I believe it was since I was not surprised to hear it lately, only surprised that Prosecution KNEW it was flawed at the time and used it anyway.  That is probably why he did not use it in closing.  Probably was admonished and prohibited from doing so in-camera. Mugginsx (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I know that, LedRush. I'm just not for it (per what I already stated on it). Hopefully, enough others weigh in so that we can gain consensus. I'm not going to throw a big fuss if most others agree with you on this.


 * Mugginsx, yes, it would seem more relevant to include in the Trial section if we mention Baez commenting on it being flawed beforehand. But I'd still prefer it (Bradley's admission) not be there (per what I've already gone over). Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't care. Per LedRush's concerns, I changed the wording slightly in that first sentence. To make it SUPER CLEAR right off the bat.  For NO misunderstandings at all anywhere. See that portion now, and also my edit comment. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Flyer, you know I almost always agree with you, but as to the extra headings, I do not. I thinkyou all put together great headings and too many more will make it hard for the average reader (who is not on top of the story as the editors are) to read.  I also would not mind a simple sentence repeated now and again, as long as it is kept to a minimum.  Tough call on this for me. Mugginsx (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article doesn't need too many extra headings, you know that. But I don't feel that the two I suggested would confuse anything. Including evidence in the Evidence section that was not presented at trial has been made an issue at this article (by two editors thus far). I am trying to tackle that perceived issue, along with tackling this Bradley one. But, like I stated, I am waiting for other editors to comment on this. Hashem sfarim just did, and we'll see if others do. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The chloroform stuff seems to be strewn across the middle portion of the article, with much repetition - it could do with some rewriting I feel. The erro made (for those interested) is that Bradley's software is godawful... the log it parsed was saved and deleted a number of times (because the Mork file format used by Firefox at the time is equally useless) and the forensic tool parsed it out multiple times. (for the record; this is the mistake every rookie forensic examiner makes and then learns about in his/her first week :P). So, uh, yeh, not much related to the discussion but I thought you might be interested in what exactly went wrong. --Errant (chat!) 19:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to indicate the the mistaken information regarding 84 searches was corrected at trial, making it even more important that we expand the description of how this was wrong. The current fix is obviously inadequate. http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/CacheBack-errors-0719.pdf  LedRush (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This would also mean that the info currently in the evidence section would need to be amended.LedRush (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this info was NOT corrected at trial by the prosecution and only alluded to by Baez in closing statements. These two more recent stories say the prosecution did share the info with Baez before the end of the trial. Wesh.com Channel 2 says this was discussed with Baez and that prosecutors were "about" to reveal this to the jury when they came up with verdict. (At least it would have been an automatic mistrial if it came later.) Associated Press says prosecutors deny Bradley inferred they were dishonest. Anyway, more sources should be found for exact story since I don't know how reliable Wesh is. (And there have been various articles alleging possible prosecutorial misconduct:  Forbes blog; Greta Van Sustren.) So once again good research is needed and a fair representation of facts, as above or as may develop. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt the prosecution would be willing to formally state that "Mr. Baez brought the discrepancy forward in court testimony and again at closing with his court exhibit." if it weren't true. Regardless, we don't report on truth here, just what the RSs say.  At the very least, this rebuttal (or answer) to the acquisitions requires us to: (1) rethink what we put in the trial section; (2) insert info regarding prosecution response.LedRush (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, plenty of Wikipedians say we don't report truth, citing that very line in one of our policies. But plenty of others, like me, say we should strive for accuracy (meaning the truth, not just how accurate our sources are). If Wikipedia were not about the truth, I highly doubt it would ever be used at all. Either way, I stand by not having this information in the Trial section, because, as stated above, "this info was NOT corrected at trial by the prosecution" and I also don't believe there is any need for repetition of this information, unless maybe we include the prosecutor and defense's responses to it in the Defense, prosecution and jury section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am with Flyer on this, the article must be truthful to the best of our ability. I do not know of any editor that deliberately misleads an article.  There are probably some, no doubt, but thankfully rare.
 * The various newspaper accounts that I have read are all over the place. To check for the veracity of the information one way or another, one would have to watch the trial from the point when the information is first mentioned, to the END of the trial, then read all of the newspaper accounts and try to guess which is true about what happened at the time of jury deliberations and afterward. Much easier to leave it out of the trial section. Mugginsx (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The bottom line supported by multiple refs is: the prosecutors had the info before Baez closing arguments and gave it to him and say he used it there, but they did not admit it during the trial itself. FYI Huffington Post has Bradley’s original statement later withdrawn from his web page here. Whether it was  deliberate prosecutorial misconduct, incompetence, or what is an issue that may be debated for some time and lead to further developments.
 * Of course, the bottom line for this article is the evidence and trial sections need to be merged - and made more NPOV. (I’ll do a quick draft to show how that can be dealt with today.) A count of the words devoted in evidence and trial sections only that strictly describe either the prosecution or the defense case shows twice as many words are devoted to the prosecution case than the defense case. And some of defense stuff quite redundant. Which definitely is not balanced, NPOV or BLP wise, especially considering the prosecution lost on the three main charges. Another issue that needs to be dealt with in a draft. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, so your way of being more accurate is to exclude evidence from the trial section which prosecutors and defense say was presented at trial because you don't think it was? Wah?!?  And, to make matters worse, you want to keep in information we know is wrong and misleading, just because you think (despite some RSs) that it doesn't fit the headings?
 * And, so you know, the closing arguments are part of the trial. How can you delieberately exclude information that you know corrects an untrue statement in the trial section when it seems all the RSs agree that the information was corrected at trial (some say closing statements, some say before closing statements and closing statements?  This is getting weird.LedRush (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Moved down LedRush comment that divided mine.) I'm not sure if yLedRush is responding to me or someone else. I wasn't talking about excluding but including, both fact prosecutors didn't tell jury as should have, even if it meant holding up trial til they got all the facts and that Baez mentioned in his closing. While I don't know now what exactly he said then, I doubt it was: "Prosecutors have admitted to me that there was only one search for chloroform, but they haven't bothered to tell you themselves." CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Prosecution's case was larger because they have "the burden of proof" Defense case was smaller because they only have to refute evidence put forth.  Defense's opening statement claimed many things that were not proven.  The thing to remember is what Judge Perry's said (as do all other Judge's particulary in a criminal trial) that "what the lawyer's say is not evidence".  They are merely advocates for their clients.  NPOV does not mean to artifically make the section "appear more even" by an arbitrary word count.  The Defense won on the larger counts.  That speaks for itself.  Do not recommend combining the sections. Do not recommend artifically making section read evenly that are not naturally "even". The sections have two seperate and distinct meanings. Mugginsx (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When the prosecution's evidence is repeated twice or if rebuttal questions or points made by the defense are missing, there is a problem that leads to artificial imbalance. I'll make all that clear in my talk personal page draft. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is so then you are correct - but would still not justify combining sections, if that is what you are advocating. Mugginsx (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Something else to remember, it may seem out of place just here but is useful to keep in mind in evaluating information - is that lawyers cannot be sued for defamation, slander or liable for what they say during a trial.  They can say anything no matter how outrageous if they think it will affect the jury in their favor. Mugginsx (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, I'm not understanding your argument and never will. I'm not going to keep repeating myself in whole either. Bottomline: It makes no sense to call "BLP violation" in this case when the information you want included is already included right above the Criminal trial section. You want people to see it clearly, then add the subheadings Evidence presented at trial and Evidence excluded from trial, as I suggested. "Problem" solved. It does not have to be included in both the Evidence and Criminal trial sections. I am not seeing why it should be in the Criminal trial section when this admission came after the trial. Yes, the prosecution knew about this, according to Bradley, but it was never presented at trial to the jury. For the Criminal trial section, I am not seeing the problem with wanting to restrict it to things that were actually presented to the jury at trial. Bradley's admission was not made on the stand; simple as that.

To Carolmooredc and LedRush, how is there a POV issue when the article does report Bradley's admission? That admission does not have to be in two spots. To Carolmooredc, you complain about the Evidence section only being against Casey Anthony? That's because all the evidence has to do with Casey Anthony. There is no evidence whatsoever against anyone else. And the Criminal trial section is fairly equal; however, if I had to state which side has more representation in that section right now, I'd say the defense does; Baez is mentioned more than either of the prosecutors. The evidence and trial sections do not "need to be merged"; it makes no sense to merge those sections. At all. If I have to gain consensus to get the POV tag removed, just like I did last time (Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 5), then I will. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First, the new info has to be tweaked to be more accurate, which I'll do. Second, if chloroform evidence can be used in both sections, so can rebuttal of that evidence. Which is duplicative and confusing, which is why the sections need to be merged. Patience. With all the other minor problems I'm finding I need to correct, it may take a bit longer to present a draft on my talk page. In the interim, let's not jump the gun. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The chloroform information is used in both sections because it needs to be. It was a central part of the evidence and the trial. Bradley's admission was not. There is nothing wrong with the chloroform information being in two spots, for the reasons I just mentioned. And it is certainly not confusing. Nothing needs to be merged, and to say that sections need to be merged because they partly report the same thing is just silly. In that case, plenty of articles would not bother to have sections on two entirely different subjects...due to partial overlap. A lot of things in this article partially overlap. It doesn't mean that everything in this article should be grouped under one heading, does it? The same thing applies in this instance. The Criminal trial and Evidence sections are two entirely different subjects. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I implemented WP:BOLD and made the suggested subheadings. With the heading Excluded from trial right about the Criminal trial subheading, I really cannot see an argument for then including that same Bradley confession/correction in the Criminal trial section. It is explicitly stated above what evidence was excluded, and then the article simply goes into the happenings of the trial. Flows well. The POV tag, I removed, because it's already been made clear that the evidence is more so against Casey; there really isn't any evidence against George or anyone else, the Criminal trial section is balanced, and Carolmooredc made some edits to fix other things. JacobTrue (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc has made this an issue at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I reported below 17 minutes ago. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mugginsx made a compromise proposal that seems to work. And I tweaked it. Something like this was also suggested by LedRush. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

second paragraph
It states that: Caylee Marie Anthony (born August 9, 2005)[1] was last seen with her mother on June 16, 2008 and was reported missing by her grandmother, Cindy Anthony, on July 15, 2008.[2]  Last seen by whom? In reality, we do not know who saw Caylee and Casey together last. Needs to be fixed. Whom do you mean to say saw them last together on June 16, 2008? Cindy, the Anthony family, her boyfriend - who? Mugginsx (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, it was George who testified that he was the last one to see Casey and Caylee together. He stated, as I recall, that he woke up early that morning (as he did every morning) to spend time with Caylee before she left the house with Casey. He testified that he asked Caylee where they were going and Caylee responded with something like "Zanny's". I don't recall the exact words, so a review of the transcript might be in order to be more spedific. Of course, that assumes you believe George is telling the truth, and I believe someone from the jury said they had concerns about the truthfulness of George. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You may be correct but it does not say that in the sentence. The sentence is an incomplete sentence as it stands.  I have taken out the ambiguous part of the sentence, left the rest. Mugginsx (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the draft?
I thought it was mentioned, as a result of a discussion of changing sections and merging other sections, an editor was to propose a draft for consensus. May I ask where it is and when is the vote? Will not be back until afternoon and would like the opportunity to see it and vote on it, if that is still the plan. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering all the problematic edits I am finding and needing to correct - within my 3RR - before suggesting any alternatives on my talk page, that may take a few days. There's a lot of material in those sections with lots of refs. What's your hurry? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is fine Carol, take your time. I was just wondering.  Please do not move anything on the Talk pages.  You are not supposed to do it.  It is a new request and belongs where I originally put it. Mugginsx (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard about trial error
Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

Just put this up since people here don't seem to get the point a couple of us have been making:
 * Casey Anthony: removing prosecutor error during trial from trial section: A couple editors keep arguing that even though multiple WP:RS show prosecutors say that during the trial they gave corrected evidence (that there was only one chloroform search) to the defense which provided it at trial and even though prosecutors were about to give this evidence to the jury, this information does not belong in the trial section. One therefore reverted this new edit of mine (which also corrected some factual errors). Two of us feel it is a serious BLP violation not to put this in the trial section but an earlier section where the exculpatory value is not perfectly clear, especially to casual readers. Please comment on this narrow issue. Thanks.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JacobTrue: I don't know if you've read all the back and forth on this in two sections above. But understand that it doesn't matter that Bradley revealed this after the trial. What matters is that it occurred during the trial. (added later: you also have removed WP:RS info of great relevance about what the prosecution and defense discussed as described below. please put it back in the existing section.)
 * Also, thanks for separating the sections. A tiny summary of stuff presented at trial might be warranted, but details and defense questions and arguments on it belong in the trial section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied at the noticeboard too, and pointed them to the discussion above, stating, "The information is already covered right above the Criminal trial section, in the Excluded from trial subsection. That heading is perfectly clear to readers. This information, while presented to prosecutors, was excluded from trial (from the jury). How does this not belong in the Excluded from trial subsection? And if included there, why should it be in both sections? I could understand if we were leaving this information out, but we are not." Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To make it easier to understand, beside NY Times article saying the prosecution witness alerted the prosecution during trial, this is the most relevant part of the text related to the period of the trial (which does include jury deliberation period):
 * The prosecution stated they discussed the issue with defense attorney Jose Baez on June 27th and he raised the issue in court testimony and in closing.Ref 1 Baez asked Judge Perry to instruct the jury about this search information, but prosecutors disputed the request. On July 5, furing deliberations, prosecutors were about to give the jury corrected information about the one search, but the jury reached a verdict before they did so. Had the jury found Anthony guilty, this would have been grounds for a mistrial.[Ref 2
 * CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I stated there as well, "Though there is need for 'multiple inclusion of key evidence' in some instances of this article, that is not what this is about. The discussion linked above goes over it. This 'key evidence' was not included at trial, so why does it belong in the Criminal trial section that goes over evidence that was? Why is it not better left in the Excluded from trial subsection and only that section? And exactly how is it a BLP issue when this information is presented quite clearly for readers to see? Carolmooredc completely removed it from the Excluded from trial subsection, which makes no sense to me. 'Presented to the prosecution' does not negate the fact that this information was excluded from trial."


 * Carolmooredc, will you agree to keep this discussion at the Noticeboard instead of repeating it here? Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Mugginsx made a compromise proposal that seems to work. And I tweaked it. Something like this was also suggested by LedRush. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I explained why it was logically wrong and still a BLP violation. How about giving non-involved editors a chance to respond there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I explained why it's not. LedRush has already agreed to the compromise. And as for letting others weigh in, that's what I was trying to do (whether involved or non-involved). Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Carol, I think I will listen to all of the tapes (if they still exist) on Mr. Bradley's testimony at trial. Your opinion is valued here but we are allowed to disagree.  In my years I have been disagreed with and out voted more times than I would like to remember.  It is not personal.  But to be fair, I will try my very best to find the trial tapes - the only thing I personally trust except for trial transcripts. Of course, you and any else can also do the same Does that sound fair to you.  The issue can always be brought up again if something radically different is found. Mugginsx (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now made changes that make it clear just what happened in both the Excluded section diff and the trial section diff. The latter being just two sentences that clearly state what happened and clearly direct people to the relevant section. These two sets of changes address my BLP concerns with this issue which have expressed many times at the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <Strike>Why can't you keep this discussion in one place? I'm tired of repeating the same information in two spots.</Strike> Like I stated in altering your change, "[We don't] need the second line. Trimmed. Fixed [proper] formatting. It is not up to you to decide what compromise is acceptable. This is enough, as four editors are for it. It's up to you to convince us otherwise, and you haven't." Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added this bit in because it is needed to show that this information was not presented to the jury. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do all the sources say that it was discussed at trial?LedRush (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the fact that it was not presented at trial? By "not presented at trial," I mean it was not used as evidence -- not presented to the jury. We didn't know about any of this until after the trial. Withholding information from the jury equals "not presented at trial" to me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Redesigning the Evidence section
From what I see of the Evidence section, most of what is there was presented at trial. But if there is anything there that wasn't presented at trial, perhaps it would be best to split it up into two subsections? One subsection titled Pre-trial and the other Trial. I'd need help to sort out anything that was not presented at trial. Though I did watch the trial live, I did not watch every single day.

Then again, the information there is not a lot, and all of the evidence used for trial was "pre-trial" evidence first...so maybe leaving it as it is would be best. Or we can specify through text, right there in that section, what wasn't presented at trial. What I do feel is that all of the material should be kept. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First, the diary should be removed: I researched the sources, which go til early 2011 and don't even mention the defense attorneys wanted the diary excluded. Evidently the judge excluded it, since this google news search showed no mention of the topic after early 2011. Hearing no good arguments for keeping in one of the hundreds of pieces of alleged evidence not presented at trial, and one of the more ambiguous ones, I will delete those two paragraphs. Soon I'll check and see if other items of evidence not presented at trial need removal. (And note I haven't even read the whole article carefully for such questionable material, trying not to get overly involved. But we know how articles can suck us in!)


 * Of course, people might want to discuss a section called "evidence not presented at trial" which often really is allegations. IN any case, such a section should include evidence on both sides. It's definitely a big can of worms and should be dealt with in a consistent manner. I'll have to look at it more carefully. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying, in this case, I feel discussion should be had before anything is removed, CarolMooreDC. While being WP:BOLD can be good, we should see if any other editors want to exclude the diary, or any other evidence that may have not been presented at trial, so that we can avoid a revert war on it. And like you stated, "Of course, people might want to discuss a section called "evidence not presented at trial." Although...I would not want such a long, manual of style-offending title as that. The "Pre-trial" subtitle would suffice, or even specifically mentioning in the text what evidence was presented at trial or not. But from what I can tell, most of the evidence in the Evidence section was included at trial.


 * The reason I don't feel that any of this evidence should be excluded is because if we are trying to create an encyclopedia about this case, would an encyclopedia really exclude things such as initial evidence that was collected but excluded from trial? To me, it's almost the same as Baez not being able to use the sexual abuse allegations in his closing arguments. I like making our articles as comprehensive as possible. I don't find inclusion of the diary, trivial, for example. But let's see what other editors here have to state. Like I stated above, I won't make a big fuss if the diary is removed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say, that yes, of course we want to exclude initial evidence that was collected by excluded at trial, unless that evidence or its exclusion was so overwhelmingly newsworthy that it's gathering or inclusion was worthy of significant coverage in reliable sources. Heck, we don't even want to discuss every piece of evidence that was used at the trial, or every witness that testified, or whatever other details we want to focus on. Our job is not to try to cover every detail, only those which are most necessary to explain the "Death of Caylee Anthony". But, that's probably because while I also think that our articles are comprehensive, I have a different interpretation of what "comprehensive" means than you do.  Perhaps, then, a better question to ask is "what about these diaries is important to the overall story?"  I don't know enough about the diaries themselves to know their importance here, so if there is a good reason, then if someone explains maybe we will all (or mostly all) agree that they should be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not for including every single detail, and have already stated, for example, that we cannot include every single witness. I am mostly for the most significant/relevant details. And I definitely feel that if we are going to have an Evidence section, every piece of evidence that was used at trial is significant and should be covered. As for the diary, however? I just don't see why it should be excluded, per what I stated above. And as can be seen from the Evidence section, collecting information about it became the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, multiple news sources report 400 pieces of evidence used at trial. You're not actually suggesting that we include information about 400 pieces of evidence, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, no. Just the key items used by either side. Like I stated, "I am mostly for the most significant/relevant details." Flyer22 (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To continue, I don't see that the diary was used at trial. Can you prove that it was a major reason she was indicted before the body was found? Otherwise, I don't see a source supporting the relevance, and especially supporting use of two whole paragraphs. Meanwhile I'll mention that the attorney asked for its exclusion; and if find a source saying it was excluded, will add that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, after searching around current and news archives, I found only one article claiming the diary was used at trial, and that's more of an opinion piece in NY Daily news, so may have been a supposition and not a reportable fact. It just seems like it would have been bigger news if it had been used. So at very least far less notable than other of 400 pieces of evidence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit is a good solution to the diary information, Carolmooredc. I did have to remove a partial ref you left behind as well as fix duplication, but my point is...otherwise a good edit. I wasn't saying that it "was a major reason she was indicted before the body was found." Only that I felt it shouldn't be completely removed. It seems it was used to support the prosecution's belief that Casey Anthony wanted to "live the good life." Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading the "Evidence excluded..." section, I'm mystified as to why the diary is mentioned at all. The defense says there is no proof that it was written in 2008, the prosecution basically agrees with that, and apparently the judge denied the defense's attempt to exclude it! So what relevance does it have to anything? If the answer is "none", why confuse readers with irrelevant information? Shirt  waist &#9742;  12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that's irrelevant, and neither did the prosecution. The prosecution argued that it was written on June 21 of 2008, the same day that Caylee went missing, or around that time (Caylee was last seen by George and Cindy Anthony on June 16). The prosecution felt this could not just be a coincidence, especially given what Casey wrote in the letter and how she behaved after her child died, even going so far as to get a tattoo that pretty much signaled the same thing. The problem the prosecution had was proving that it was written the year/day they believe it to have been written. So, yes, considering that the diary was considered key evidence for some time and there was significant media attention given to it, I feel that mention of it should stay. It was already downsized, and I feel that is enough, though just how important this evidence was considered to be to the prosecution should be elaborated on. I don't believe that readers will be confused at all by us mentioning this in a section that makes it clear it was excluded from the jury. If we are going to include excluded evidence, which I feel that we should, then the diary is one of the better pieces to mention. Flyer22 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley's testimony - listened to the tapes as promised
Carol, as promised, I listened to many tapes. I listened to Bradley's testimony, his direct, cross, re-direct, re-cross, and re-re-direct. I also listened to Baezs' closing arguments, though not Masons'. During Bradley's testimony, Baez definitely questions the software but uses only report done on Bradley's software. He talks about many technical things like "tabs" and how many times does a computer "refresh" itself. He also asks if Bradley's software can tell if the pages were printed out (why, I don't know). But in his closing statements, he talks mainly about the crime scene evidence and he tries to state that it was staged, either by Kronk or George. He talks about many things related to that but I never hear him once mention the computer evidence. It is unlikely (though not impossible) that Mason did because Baez handled that part of the case (with Bradley),and so, it would most certainly have been Baez that would have refuted it at closing arguments. I do not think, from what I heard, that he had the information that Bradley's software was flawed at that time. If he did, he would have pounced on it, and most likely, the man would have been taken off the stand and judge would have told the jurors to ignore the testimony right then and there. And if the judge knew that the prosecution knew, all H--- would have broke loose. Maybe, he had it during the sentencing - but if he did - Defense would have waited and saved the information as their "ace-in-the-hole" for a possible mistrial if the sentencing went sour, which, as you know, it did not. OK? Mugginsx (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point. Are you trying to disprove something a WP:RS wrote? Your saying something is not there is not a reliable source. Your saying something is on a tape at some specific point in time, especially if backed up with a WP:RS, would be. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What RS are you talking about? A newspaper?  I have said here before, a newspaper, etc., article is only a good source is the information therein is true.  Same for newscaster on TV.  I have seen both used here.  The actual unedited tapes of the trial do not lie.  I watched the entire testimony on the subject matter.  I reported what I saw.  If a newspaper, blog, tv personality, etc., says differently, they are not a reliable source - I do not care if it is a large newspaper, a major TV personality, etc.  I reported to you what the sources revealed.  What specific reliable source are you claiming? Mugginsx (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We are merely talking generalities here, which I could do further but won't. Again: Are you trying to disprove something a WP:RS wrote? Are your referring to a specific edit you want changed? Details please. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what I was saying. Here is one specific source that is in the "View History" section that seems to be attributable to you:  http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/259019/Day-13:-Witnesses-found-chloroform-search-on-Casey-Anthonys-computer.   Perhaps it is one that was originally someone else's that you decided to keep in, regardless, it only talks about that day of testimony that I watched and says nothing more.  I am not going to go looking for every source you gave or left in.  You know what sources you used on Bradley.  Look, I was just trying to show you I would go the extra mile for you but if you do not agree, you do not agree.  I am satisfied that the facts were entered in the right section and a re-direct was added at the end of the statement concerning Bradley in the Trial section directing the reader to the section: Excluded from trial.  If you do not agree, that is your right.  These sources are another matter that I am not willing to spend hours on references just to try to persuade you.  The consensus was reached.  I know what was said at trial insofar as Mr. Bradley is concerned and I explained in depth to you.  That is what I said I would do.  Now, I am going to say good night because I am off to do other things.  If you want to say more I will be happy to discuss it tomorrow. Mugginsx (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This citation which you or someones else used actually agrees with what I have just said. It also states that what the Times reported was wrong "which they withdrew", according to this article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/anthony-trial-witness-john-bradley-backtracks_n_905119.html  The Defense learned about too late for testimony but not too late for sentencing.  They saved it for a possible "mistrial" issue but they didn't need it since the verdict went their way.  (they knew the misdemeanor charge were already served and were not worried about that) Lawyers know all of the possible sentencing options in their head already.
 * To anticipate your next question, Why did they appeal? Good Criminal Defense Lawyers almost always appeal even misdemeanor charges in a criminal case.  It is a matter of form and keeping one's legal options open for the future.  Probably also to keep her civil trial fifth privileges invocations without ramifications, at least, temporarily.  I am not going to explain to you every reason why.  That is all I have to say on the subject.  Mugginsx (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a couple factoids to check out on this when back at my own computer, but I still don't know what exactly it is you want changed to something else. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

CNN article on evidence and some questions
I know people have been working hard on this article, but seems to me information in the following CNN story should be included: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/15/casey.anthony.forensic.evidence/ In particular our sentence on DNA testing should make clear the fact that only mitochondrial DNA was tested and that such a test can not distinguish between DNA from people in the same maternal line, in this case the dead child, her mother, her grandmother or her uncle. Right now the sentnce only mentions that the number of base pairs tested (752 -- is that enough?). Also the sentence links to mitochondrion and genome, not the more relevant mitochondrial DNA article. Finally, I am puzzled by the Evidence section. It has two subheads: Presented at trial and Excluded from trial, but the Excluded from trial section talks about evidence presented at trial. At the least, there should be some explanation of the two sections. (Was there a hearing? Did the judge reject some evidence?, Was a reason given? ...) --agr (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree as to the DNA evidence. In fact I just heard some of that testimony.  It was definitely mitrochrondrial DNA - Only the mother's line - only showing the child could not have been fathered by her brother or father. Would you put the information in?
 * The sections are there because yes, there was "information" (not necessary evidence, but could have been) excluded from this trial. Some was done at sidebar, some in-camera.  Some we know about, some we do not because they were in camera.  Thus, the need for the two sections was established.  Mugginsx (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See the and  (as well as the section above this one) for why the Evidence section has been split. We didn't want to get rid of the evidence that was not used at trial, and at least two editors expressed that the section should be clear about what evidence was used at trial and what wasn't. Thus, I suggested subheadings that make it clear. The Excluded from trial section makes clear why that particular evidence was not used at trial (whether rejected by the judge or otherwise). The only reason that section talks about the chloroform evidence presented at trial is to properly address the chloroform evidence that was not presented at trial (to the jury anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I know people are really trying to get it right, but the Excluded section makes little clear. It also seem in conflict with the CNN article I cited above. Please take a fresh look at it from the perspective of someone like me who has not been following the trial. --agr (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we just had a big ta doo about what was an wasn't excluded re: the chloroform issue. Excluded actually isn't the right word - the section should be Evidence excluded or withheld at trial
 * Anyway, if the defense experts countered any of this a trial, obviously it belongs in that section. If there is going to be a lot of post-trial analysis of the (often dubious) science, there needs to be an aftermath subsection on it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ArnoldReinhold, I don't see how the subheading Excluded from trial "makes little clear." The heading alone makes clear that this evidence was not used at trial. Anything not clear from text alone should be fixed through editing that text. How is that section contradicted by the CNN link you have provided? If you mean that some of the evidence in that section was actually presented at trial, such as the "body farm" science, then it should be moved up to the Presented at trial section. And of course the DNA information you mentioned should be added.


 * Carolmooredc, I don't know why you always try to complicate things or use every little issue that can be fixed through tweaking to support your drastic redesign proposal. Or why you cannot just accept a compromise and leave it that. How at all does it make sense to include the word Evidence in the subsection title of the Evidence section? It's clear that the section is dealing with evidence...since the primary heading is titled Evidence. That is what I mean about you complicating things, or coming up with headings or whatever that WP:Manual of Style advises against. Even leaving it as Excluded or withheld at trial makes little sense improvement-wise. "Withheld from trial" is still "excluded from trial." Bradley's admission was not included, was it? Then that equals excluded; neither the jury nor the general public were presented this information until now. As for Post-trial analysis, there has already been a lot of that -- mostly about the verdict. Which is covered in the Public and media reactions section. I highly doubt having a Post-trial analysis section where pundits are discussing what evidence should have been used at trial will be considered something that should be in this article. And if such a thing were included, it could be made into a subsection of the Criminal trial section. I'll go on record right now and state that I'm against that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked this in another thread waaaay up there^, but I'll ask it again here - If defense and prosecution both agree it hasn't been proven that the diary was written in 2008, and the judge denied defense's attempt to exclude it, how is it relevant to anything? If it is not relevant, why confuse readers with irrelevant information? Shirt  waist &#9742;  12:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I stated this waaaay up there^ (LOL), too, in response to you: I don't feel that's irrelevant, and neither did the prosecution. The prosecution argued that it was written on June 21 of 2008, the same day that Caylee went missing, or around that time (Caylee was last seen by George and Cindy Anthony on June 16). The prosecution felt this could not just be a coincidence, especially given what Casey wrote in the letter and how she behaved after her child died, even going so far as to get a tattoo that pretty much signaled the same thing. The problem the prosecution had was proving that it was written the year/day they believe it to have been written. So, yes, considering that the diary was considered key evidence for some time and there was significant media attention given to it, I feel that mention of it should stay. It was already downsized, and I feel that is enough, though just how important this evidence was considered to be to the prosecution should be elaborated on. I don't believe that readers will be confused at all by us mentioning this in a section that makes it clear it was excluded from the jury. If we are going to include excluded evidence, which I feel that we should, then the diary is one of the better pieces to mention. Flyer22 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that whatever the prosecution thought about it, the diary was ultimately proved irrelevant to the case by everyone involved. Nothing is going to make it any more relevant, not what the prosecution, you, or I think, and certainly not what the media thinks. The only possible use for it in this article is to imply something to the reader about Casey Anthony that has not been proved, which is definitely going against the letter and spirit of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Is that what WP is about?  Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shirtwaist, I respect your concern, but I'm not trying to do that at all. Just as it is your opinion that it should not be included, it is my opinion that it should be included for the reasons I stated above. Again, the prosecution did not consider it irrelevant; they simply could not prove the day/year it was written, and felt that, because of this, they would have to take a gamble without use of the diary. Including that information is not about "[implying] something to the reader about Casey Anthony that has not been proved." It's about this evidence having been important enough to the prosecution to try and get it included at some point at trial and some of us feeling that evidence that was excluded should be mentioned in this article. I'm sure the prosecution will comment on it in the future, for example. Likely even scholars. We are only talking about the most relevant pieces that were excluded. The diary is the most relevant piece, aside from Bradley's admission. It's not a BLP or NPOV issue to include mention of some evidence that was excluded from trial (or the jury, whatever). I don't like being accused of bias, when I have made it clear that I am trying to build a comprehensive article about this case. That would mean including some evidence that was excluded from trial. I have no doubt that if we left it out, we would get people asking, "Why isn't the diary mentioned? It was reported on often, after all." And as can be seen in the, there is confusion about just what items were and were not admitted into evidence...including the diary. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well all of this is something I (and/or we) were discussing below. So far it sounds like this is still up for debate. Perhaps a new section should be started for the diary, but I guess just a few comments here...I think its quite a jump to say it was proved irrelevant. There is still a lot of mystery about it, at least to me, as to its origins and use. You say that the defense denied its exclusion, which doesnt make sense to me...only adding to more confusion. If its exclusion was denied (instead of affirmed) then that would suggest the defense wanted it in the case. Again, that is more confusion. We can guess why the prosecution didn't present it to the jury, but right now I am not able to find a reason why. In other words, I think nothing has been proved at this point regarding the diary. Considering what the diary says, I would certainly support keeping it in the article until we can nail down just what is going on with this diary. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, ThisLaughingGuyRightHere. Basically what I was saying above, though I wouldn't say the diary information needs its own section. Or at least that it's best not to give it WP:UNDUE weight right now. I put my comment before yours because Shirtwaist was responding to me. I also had an edit conflict with your edit, and it turns out that you beat me to posting by a minute. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry for the double post, but I posted my above comment the same time as Flyer. If we are going to discuss the 400 or so pieces of evidence, certainly we would want to discuss the ones that would be substantial in the case, and as was pointed out, seemed to be a focus in the media. Again, all of this is something we are trying to figure out. As for its origins, if this was something brought up at a pre-trial evidence hearing, then someone must have thought it was substantial. That is part of what seems undetermined right now. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)@Flyer- I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm merely stating that the inclusion of something considered unprovable by the prosecution (and therefore not worth presenting at trial) is giving it more importance than it deserves, thus failing WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, which is made even trickier by WP:BLP. Asserting that 'because the prosecution wanted to use it to help their case, but decided not to, proves its notability' ignores the fact that it is not notable until it is shown to be by one or more RS. Can you provide even one RS that does that?
 * @TLGRH - If everything about the diary is so confusing, why pass that confusion onto the reader unless we can provide reliable sources that clear up the confusion? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog about mysteries. Shirt  waist &#9742;  23:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shirtwaist - You make good points. Unfortunately I lack answers right now. All of this was part of the bigger list of what made it into evidence and what is not. If it turns out this was not on the list then it would certainly raise the issue of relevance like you mentioned. Right now I'm thinking that it was uncovered, along with all the other evidence, by the police and turned over to the prosecution. Finding out what is on the list is more of my concern than focusing on just one item. I wouldn't want to remove something with the risk of removing possible evidence. At the moment, I just don't know. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shirtwaist, I don't know what else to state about this that wouldn't simply be repeating myself. I still feel that what you state about WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in regards to including this information is more so opinion. It's certainly an opinion to say that it should be excluded. As for showing it to be notable by one or more reliable source(s), we have reliable sources in the article showing just how notable it was considered to be. As the article currently shows, it was investigated by the FBI, and "Lead attorney Jose Baez called the evidence 'completely speculative' and filed a motion to exclude it from evidence, which the judge denied." It says the judge denied Baez's request to exclude it from evidence. So if it was used as evidence but was excluded from trial, why shouldn't we mention it in the Excluded from trial section, given everything I stated above about it? There already needs to be a brief mention that 400 pieces of evidence were presented. So out of those 400 pieces, why not mention the most significant ones? The ones that were felt to be the most significant, as reported on by reliable sources? For this case, there wasn't much evidence that was reported on by reliable sources. It was rather the same evidence reported on time and time again, with a few new things thrown in every now and then. The diary was one of the pieces consistently reported on. Like ThisLaughingGuyRightHere, I'm just waiting for more on it and I don't feel that it should be removed in the meantime. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see I'm getting nowhere with this, so let me say one last thing. You seem to be confusing "reported on" with "notable enough for a good WP article". As has been pointed out by others, being reported on by news media does not confer on something the virtue of being notable regarding an encyclopedia, and neither does the hopes of the prosecution, nor the disdain of the defense. If you and others assert that this item is one of "the most significant ones", what makes it so? For all anyone knows, it could be the most insignificant scriblings of an insignificant person that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this article. What do we have to prove otherwise besides supposition, speculation and innuendo? Whatever your answer is, I can assure you that if this article ever manages to get to a GA, let alone an FA review, mention of the diary and everything like it will almost certainly be jettisoned as inappropriate. If current consensus goes against that, so be it. Shirt  waist &#9742;  02:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I also have repeatedly expressed a problem with the Diary issue as you can read above. I found only one questionable ref saying it even was used at trial. I cut the section down by about 2/5s in an earlier edit. It really should go. However, it takes editors sticking around in the face of editors committed to keeping in this kind of material to make the article more accurate, balanced and NPOV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shirtwaist, I'm not confusing anything. I've already stated why I feel that the diary information should stay and what makes it one of the most significant pieces of evidence excluded from trial. You just happen to disagree. Should we not include pieces of evidence that were excluded from trial? Anyone who says that we should, I correctly point that out as opinion, and we might as well exclude Bradley's admission as well (calls of BLP be damned). If we are going include pieces of evidence excluded from trial, as others feel that we should, then how are any of the other pieces (with the exception of Bradley's admission) more significant than the diary? Why should the diary, which was considered key evidence and was accepted by the judge, be excluded? As for it belonging to someone else other than Casey Anthony? No, it's never been argued in reliable sources that it doesn't belong to her, as even Baez didn't argue that. The same goes for her writing that entry. If there was any question that she did not write it, that would have been stated through reliable sources. And, finally, about GA and FA... As someone familiar with getting articles to GA status, and even a few to FA status, biographies included (though not all are listed on my user page), I can assure you that if this article is well-written, well-organized and well-sourced when it is up for review, mention of the diary will most certainly NOT be jettisoned as inappropriate. My familiarity with what are considered GA articles is the main reason I objected to an outside editor nominating it for GA some days ago. The other reason, you already know, is because I feel that regular editors of the article (if there are any) should be asked about GA nomination first. But we have our opinions.


 * Carolmooredc, of course you feel it should go. You lean more toward the defense in your editing, when other editors of this article are fairly neutral. The diary not being used at trial does not mean that it should be excluded from this article. There is nothing wrong in mentioning one of the more relevant excluded pieces of 400 pieces of evidence. The Bradley admission was excluded from trial as well. That is why both are in the Excluded section. I compromised with you on both (such as agreeing with your downsizing the diary information). But you have shown that you cannot accept compromises, and only want things your way. It takes editors sticking around to make the article more accurate, balanced and NPOV indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "calls of BLP be damned" - Good luck with that. Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Won't need it. Not trying to do it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Flyer22: Opining that the article does not have as much defense rebuttal of or presentation of evidence to explain what happened at trial - in a case where the defense won! -- is being pro-WP:NPOV. What you should be more concerned with is all the places where a check of references show articles did not say what they are alleged to have said. (And I've barely begun to check them all out.) One minor example, something which could be properly sourced but is not is this ref which does not back up the contention about what defense was allowed to mention: Closing arguments were given on July 2 and 3. Since the defense offered no proof of any sexual abuse of Casey by either George or Lee Anthony, it was not allowed to mention those claims in the closing arguments.ref. So why don't we all concentrate for a few days on making sure that assertions and references actually match. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does have as much defense rebuttal. And as for the defense not having as much evidence, that has been explained: They don't have any evidence against George Anthony suggesting that he "made the accident look like a murder" (unless you mean the duct tape they say they believe was used by George Anthony, which I have no problem with being added). All they have is a story, a story that had one part of it banned from closing arguments by the judge. And hearsay from a woman who accused George Anthony of having an affair with her. All evidence is against Casey Anthony. The trial is about Casey Anthony. So I don't know why you are opining that the Evidence section doesn't include anything implicating others and is therefore not neutral. As for what I should be more concerned with, the people adding references that don't back up claims should be more careful. I shouldn't have to cleanup after others. But, yes, I am concerned about that and other things regarding this article...such as proper or consistent reference formatting. Is it that difficult to simply use ref templates when including references? Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And for the record, you're wrong about that CNN source. It specifically says: Just before closing arguments began, Perry prohibited defense attorneys from bringing up allegations that Casey Anthony was allegedly sexually abused by her father or brother. Perry said there are "no facts in evidence or reasonable inferences that can be drawn ... that either Mr. George Anthony or Mr. Lee Anthony molested or attempted to molest Ms. Anthony." Check Page 5. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing, top of page 5 of that reference says exactly that and explains why. I'm still reading page 5 at the moment but you need to continue reading all the pages not just the one. Also, the reference in the article should say page 5 or have the dif go to page 5 and not the first page. If it doesn't, then this should be corrected. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Crohnie, that CNN reference is used for more than just that line, though. So to only cite it as Page 5 is not accurate when considering the other lines it is attributed to. We'd either need to add "Pages 1-5" to the source or use the source separately more than once. The latter is not needed and would take up kilobyte room, making the article open slower. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note this info: JUNE 15, 2011 - The state called 59 people for 70 different testimonies over 18 days of court. JUNE 30, 2011 -- Defense rests its case after calling 47 witnesses for 63 different testimonies over 11 days of court.Ref makes it clear we have to be clear on which defense witnesses offered clear rebuttals to which prosecution evidence. Much of this is left to closing arguments where attorney arguments carry less weight evidence-wise than expert rebuttal. So that's one of the POV problems. As for my comment on references and content matching, I'm going to work next on correcting some very clear factual errors. Then will look at lists of evidence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding what you mean about "that's one of the POV problems." The Criminal trial section, including its Closing arguments section, is well-balanced...despite how many people the state called to the stand. And the state calling 59 people versus the defense's 47 is just a fact; there is nothing we can do about that. It doesn't mean we should try to hide or downplay that fact by citing NPOV, when this is how things occurred. That said, it is not as though we should include each and every witness/testimony. And we don't. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I'm talking context, per the edits just made. From this article (mirrored by your comments above), one would almost think there were just a couple defense witnesses. I myself have argued you obviously can't use all the evidence, but given the thousands of articles about the trial out there, some emphasizing some evidence and/or rebuttal more than others, it's easy to pick and choose in a POV way what to put in and out. But since the outcome was that the jury acquitted the defendant, a description of defense evidence and rebuttals as thorough as that of defense evidence obviously is necessary. But again, let's not argue generalities ad nauseum. Thanks.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I stated, I don't see what you mean about POV...because the type of POV you cited is not going on with this article. There is no "defense evidence." You can try to create it all you want, but it does not exist. Things like the defense accusing George Anthony of "making the accident look like murder" is not evidence. A woman claiming an affair with George Anthony and saying George called it an accident is not evidence. None of that belongs in the Evidence section, really. And if you want it made clear how many witnesses were called for either side, then you put that in summary form, which you already did (though you still need to learn how to use ref templates). You don't make false claims of POV and such. The only one arguing things ad nauseum is you. You keep making a big deal about minor things, things that can easily be fixed. If you see something that needs fixing, then you fix it...as long as it is truly a problem and not just your perception of a problem. Because, as you know, edits that others disagree with will be reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Question
Can anyone direct me to a link that shows how the defense explained the duct tape on the childs face? I've been looking for this but can't seem to find it. They had to have said something to make the jury ignore the fact that this child was dumped with the nose and mouth duct tape. Now how the jury got passed that image is hard to see for me so I'd love to be able to read it in transcripts or if necessary the news media. I prefer not to listen to a taped version, not easy to skim to what I'm looking for. The article doesn't address this and I really think something should be said about this if there is something in a reliable source that decribes anything more about it. I thought this was the most damning of everything out there but no one is talking about it, why? Help would be appreciated, thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Defense expert: Autopsy on Caylee Anthony 'shoddy' A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Defense focuses on DNA in Anthony trial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, off to go read! :) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of things stand out in these two sources. First, there were two shovels, one that Casey Anthony borrowed from a neighbor but also one that was found near where Caylee Anthony was found.  In this source it says, "Those items included pieces of a spare tire cover from the trunk of Casey Anthony's car, a shovel she borrowed from her parents' neighbor, several items of clothing from Casey's bedroom and a shovel found with her daughter's remains."  I also think the information from the different forensic people should be added from these two difs.  I'm not sure exactly what should be written but pretty much there is a defense side to things and a prosecuters side.  Also, this is the first time I've seen the defense warned about not sharing information with the prosecution and being told by the judge that it's not good or acceptable to do.  All this was presented to the jury too.  Thoughts? -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey needs to have her own page
i am trying to spin off the "Death of Caylee Anthony" article to a new article on "Casey Anthony" ... currently "Casey Anthony" redirects to the death page. i strongly believe she's now and forever more is a celebrity pariah, and as such (even though she is evil[some people think]) deserves her own page. in the news today, tomorrow, and into the future there is much discussing about Casey Anthony the person. this news and information doesn't belong in the death page. please discuss Sysrpl (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC) -Noted "[some people think]" on opinions. -Wikid77 19:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this passes WP:BIO1E. I've restored the redirect. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 17:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already news about Casey unrelated to the death of her child and outside the scope of death of her child, for example now its being reported Casey want to get pregnant again and have another child . Tomorrow the big news will be where she will stay the night. There are also news items about offers to make her a porn star . There are all unrelated to the death of her daughter and they are new items because Casey Anthony herself is now a celebrity pariah. Sysrpl (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Not necessarily yet. We want to handle this pretty carefully, per WP:BLP and her being innocent of any crimes and so forth. "now its being reported Casey want to get pregnant again" is exactly and precisely the kind of stuff that we want to stay as far away from as possible (it should arguably not be allowed to exist even on this talk page, even with the ref, as I don't think that Fox News is a reliable source for anything much, but whatever). I'm not sure, but "notable as a pariah" even if true may be fundamentally incompatible with WP:BLP and we should consider taking a pass on that. At any rate, what's the hurry. We are an encyclopedia and not WikiNews, and we need to keep in mind "will people X years from now find this useful". Herostratus (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing I'd like to point out is that one of the key goals of WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E is preserving a person's privacy. Given the tremendous amount of media coverage, not to mention the fact that the trial was broadcast live on national TV, preserving her privacy isn't a concern here.  I think the article should be created, although given the vandalism and shoddy editing going on at the other article, it doesn't sound like editing this one will be a pleasant experience.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I support a separate Casey Anthony article. like it or not but this woman has recieved enough national and international coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it a little more time. Soon enough I suspect there will be book and movie deals and appearances on syndicated programming. Then it would seem to have moved beyond the single event notoriety. My76Strat  talk  23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the main article, looking at the Death of Caylee Anthony, "I don't feel that a separate article for her is needed. If this article were truly huge (and, really, it's not even big yet), then I'd see a reason for the split. But other than that? No. [Casey Anthony] is not notable outside of this case. And per WP:Notability, she is supposed to be in order to have her own article. Most of what is in [Death of Caylee Anthony] article would largely overlap in hers." Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if she does get her own article, it should be titled The Casey Anthony trial, or something like that. Flyer22 (talk)
 * From WP:BLP1E: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.  This is clearly the case with Casey Anthony.  The main article needs to be split anyway, and this is a good first step.  --Tathar (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the main article need to be split? It's not even big yet, judging it by WP:SIZE. It only looks big when glimpsing at the table of contents. When I clicked on the Death of Caylee Anthony article for the first time last week, the main thing I wondered was why the trial didn't have its own article, not Casey. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Using WP:BIO1E for this is pretty silly. It's like saying we should remove the entry on James Polk because all he's known for is being president of the United States. And now that the trial is over, and the rest of her life won't be spent in prison, I think it's about time that the information about Casey is removed from the case. Angryapathy (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Being President of the United States is not a single event. BLP1E is intended for just this kind of situation. We don't have separate articles on every murderer in a sensational trial, much less on every person acquitted of murder. If Ms. Anthony develops a public persona and gets media coverage for activities other than this case (not just the inevitable What ever happened to ... article), we can reconsider a separate article.--agr (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * U.S. presidents get articles because it is like "winning a major award" as an indication of individual notability. -Wikid77 19:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * She has received extensive coverage in dozens of reliable sources. That sounds like WP:GNG, plain and simple. Saying "she's just known for one event" ignores the fact that she has more coverage than Jonas Axeldal, who has his own article for playing professional soccer and nothing else. And the US president thing was an analogy: of course he did more than be president, but it's silly to say, "Well, he was just a President of the United States of America." And it's silly to say, "She just received more media coverage than 99.999% of the population." Angryapathy (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I very strongly feel that she should have not received any national news coverage in the first place. That's sensationalism and tabloid journalism at its best. The news coverage never should have left the state of Florida because we have court trials like this all the time, and the rest of the world doesn't really need to know about this. There's also the fact that the media has turned the Anthony neighborhood into some sort of shrine, we've turned the courtroom into a circus, and anyone who is actually supposed to be in either location is not really safe. The media has dragged her parents through a media circus unnecessarily at the worst possible time in their lives. I feel like to give her any coverage is to exacerbate the problem. I have no idea how this meshes with Wiki policy, but that's my two cents. I think the way the media handled this is deplorable.--Jp07 (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But, Jp07, initially giving her media coverage was so that Caylee could get media coverage and many people could go out and help search for her. Sadly, we all now know that she was already dead. Not simply missing. Maybe that did not have to transcend into "national news coverage," but I don't see how that can be argued when trying to bring as much attention to a search as you can. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really not the media's job to do good; it's their job to keep people informed on things they need to know. Ideally, the media will be objective on everything. And even if they are trying to help out, helping out can be done within Florida. Inundating the community with gawkers from California and elsewhere is more of a hindrance than a help.--Jp07 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really here nor there. While I agree that the media blew this case way out of proporation, we are in fact a tertiary source, and we take our cues from primary and secondary (AKA news) sources. Angryapathy (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of precedent and policy, I think it needs to be an ethical consideration. The information industry has a very large impact on what we do, say, and think, but I've had my say, so I'm going to leave it at that.--Jp07 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just not entirely in agreement with your argument about the media, Jp07. I understand what you're saying. But I feel that killers or potential killers, child molesters and pedophiles, rapists and, yes, missing people, are things that we should know about that. That's why the media reports on this all the time. Can you imagine if they never reported on serial killers, and people were left without warning that a serial killer may be loose in their city or neighborhood? But I like stated, I get the gist of what you are saying. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree to have separate article to cover many events: When a person is initially tied to a murder case, but then gets coverage because of multiple other criminal charges or lawsuits, then it clearly goes beyond WP:BLP1E. With being on trial for murder, but convicted of false reports to police, plus having jail-house letters noted, and parents in the news, plus major news about a lawsuit with a nanny, then all those events are sufficient grounds for individual notability, even if being found "not guilty of murder" is not considered winning a major award. Also, in terms of wiki-logistics, any slurs or vandalism would be easier to spot and correct in a separate article under a person's name, rather than buried in a major-event article, where the text would be more difficult to proofread. Keep a separate bio-page, as a link within a short bio-section in the article "Death of Caylee Anthony". Create the separate article, quickly revert any hacks, and then ask an admin to protect the page. -Wikid77 19:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The convictions and everything else you stated have to do with the newly titled article: Casey Anthony trial. So I'm still not seeing how she has individual notability and needs a separate article yet. I also don't feel that anything about Casey Anthony should be taken out of the main article just to better accommodate this one (if it's created). All the stuff that is in the main article belongs there. If this article significantly overlaps, then oh well. That just shows she doesn't have much notability outside of this case, if any individual notability at all. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment AFAICT, she has no notability other than the Caylee case (people who get charged with check fraud do not get WP articles, for sure). BLP1E applies entirely as far as having a biography article.  Collect (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * John Hinckley, Jr. has no notability beyond the Reagan assassination attempt. If you take another look at WP:BLP1E, it allows for articles in situations such as this.  In fact, WP:BLP1E uses John Hinckley, Jr. as an example of where it's OK to have an article such as this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure WP:BLP1E even means anything coherent that WP:NPF doesn't say in a better and more practical way. We have always had articles on people primarily known for one event, such as Richard Jewell or Monica Lewinsky or Jessica Lynch .  BLP1E sounds good in theory, but it can't apply to very high profile events without making us look silly for redirecting these biographies to event articles, and we already have standards for low profile people other than the problematic pseudo-notability adjunct advice of BLP1E. Gigs (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment if the facts regarding Casey make the 'trial' article too long, then it would need to be split in two with one article focusing on the trial and one article focusing on Casey. --TimL (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP1E (as a reason not to spin out a bio article) isn't even remotely applicable, here. It clearly states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 11:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose separate article - Apart from the murder trial then this person would be otherwise unknown, that is the spirit of BLP1E. If all you can say about this person is to give a brief bio/family history, then launch into nothing but the recently closed case, then a separate article is not warranted. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose article creation, for now - Casey Anthony isn't currently notable, outside of her trial. We don't create articles simply because it's possible; there has to be a reason for an article to be created. Wikipedia does not have a deadline and is not a newspaper. Facts about Casey Anthony that have been deemed "newsworthy" by news organizations are not necessarily encyclopedic. If she does something further to become notable, an article could be warranted. Currently, she hasn't done anything outside of the trial. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 21:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And if you ask anyone outside of the US, they won't have a clue who she is!  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, that's not close to an accurate statement, although I oppose a separate article. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I still find it funny: "Besides the copious coverage and numerous reliable sources describing Casey Anthony, she hasn't done anything to warrant her own article." Angryapathy (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's funny about an accurate statement, such as this. Per policy:


 * "'Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.'"


 * Casey Anthony has not done anything notable, beyond the context of a single event. If she does, then she could warrant her own article. Currently, everything about Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, and the event surrounding them can be documented in a single article. If that single article was too big, that could also be reason for an article on Casey Anthony being split. Currently, the article on the event is not large. Simply because we can create an article, that doesn't mean we should. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 22:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are your own rules. It has no basis in policy.  WP:BLP1E specifically states you can have an article about a person known for one event if the event is significant and is widely covered by reliable sources which clearly the case here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What has no basis in policy? I specifically linked to the policies I was referencing. Yes, you are 100% correct that WP:BLP1E states, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented, a separate biography may be appropriate." The operative word is "may". A separate biography may be appropriate. Yes, we "can" have an article, but "should" we? The case, here--as I see it--is that the event has been widely covered by reliable sources; that's why the event--being notable--has its own article. Casey Anthony, however, has not done anything notable beyond that single event, and the event article is not of a size that would warrant splitting an article specifically about her. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 23:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In quoting BLP1E, you left out the example given, "as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." Political assassinations are another category of significance, because of their potential to change history. There are over 15,000 murders each year in the United States, and many more world wide, and this death hasn't even been established as a murder. Many attract great publicity for a while, but follow a predictable arc to obscurity. The editor who initially requested a separate article gave as a reason "I strongly believe she's now and forever more is a celebrity pariah, and as such (even though she is evil[some people think]) deserves her own page. in the news today, tomorrow, and into the future there is much discussing about Casey Anthony the person. this news and information doesn't belong in the death page." This is exactly the sort of response our BLP policy is intended to prevent. As long as Ms. Anthony is not seeking publicity on her own  we should not be collecting information about her future activities. If that changes and she actively seeks publicity after her release, then she may well become notable in her own right. (See Who is a low profile individual) Until then our policy stands against a separate article.--agr (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is that your final sentence has no basis in policy. In fact, you're arguing against policy.  Length has nothing to do with notability, and even if did, there's plenty more to write about.  But it's kind of hard to write good articles when we're wasting so much time arguing whether the article should even exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * From Policy (WP:BLP1E): "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Is Casey's role within the event substantial and well-documented? Yes. Is the coverage of her persistent in reliable sources? Yes. Article? No. Hence, funny. Angryapathy (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Three years and counting, with no end in sight. As I pointed out previously, she will be notable for the rest of her life just like Hinckley.  Why don't you want an article about her?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @A Quest For Knowledge - WP:ONEEVENT says, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." This is all I meant. I didn't say length had anything to do with notability. I was merely offering another possible scenario where it may be advisable to create an article on Casey Anthony (i.e. if the event article becomes too large, which it has not).


 * @Angryapathy - It is not an "If A, then B" situation. Just because Casey Anthony's role in the event was/is significant, that does not automatically call for an article to be created about her; it just means that it is possible. However, agr summed this entire thing up better than I did. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 02:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the user essay arg cites? If so, you should know that user essays have no standing and in no way should ever, ever overrule policy.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The essay I mentioned is referenced in the BLP policy itself, to clarify where the policy apples; see note 5. Anyway, it's not central to the argument I made.--agr (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For one, I understand the role user essays play, on Wikipedia. Secondly, no, I was not referring to that essay; I was referring to agr's entire comment, which does not argue for the overrule of policy. Let's clarify some things: policy does not say Casey Anthony should have an article; policy says Casey Anthony, due to being a person who played a substantial role in a significant event, may warrant an article. Policy also says, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Currently, this is Casey Anthony. She has done nothing notable outside of the single event and has not been covered by reliable sources having done anything notable outside of the context of the single event. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 03:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Chickenmonkey and agr. I can't imagine Casey Anthony being notable for anything whatsoever besides this case. Her case is nowhere near analogous to the Hinckley/Reagan Assassination example, and therefore fails WP:BLP1E. She may do something in the future that warrants a separate article, but certainly not now, no matter how many RS continue to dwell on her(not much longer I suspect). As it stands now, she's not even a child murderer. The only other mention of her I can imagine in WP is here. Shirt  waist &#9742;  10:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Anthony will be notable for the rest of her life. (Assuming she lives a normal life-span, we have 50 more years of coverage to add.)  Entire books are being written about her.  The thing is that there will be an article about her eventually.  The only question is when.  What's sad thing is that with all the time and energy being spent on this discussion, we could already be done with the article.  Instead, it looks like we'll be discussing this for weeks/months/years to come until the inevitable happens.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Quest is right: we should stop discussing this between ourselves, because obviously we aren't going to convert each other to the other side. An RFC should be started to get outside opinions on this subject. Oh, and I should remember that sarcasm doesn't come across well in type. I am in full support of an article on Casey Anthony. Angryapathy (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Entire books are being written about her, in relation to the trial. Simply because something is verifiable doesn't mean it is notable. It is yet to be seen if she will remain a public figure, following this event. Exploiting her and her situation is exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia should avoid. Wikipedia does not have a deadline and will always be a work in progress. We will never be "done"; there's no reason to rush to create any article, especially one on a living person. If it is accurate that she will be notable for the rest of her life, an article can be created at a later date. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what one editor said above, WP:BLP1E does _not_ say that a separate article is "generally" appropriate. It says that it "may" be appropriate. I would say a big NO right now to a separate article, and wait until _after_ she becomes a porn star, reality tv-star, or whatever such that she clear merits a separate bio page.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
I understand that there is discussion going on as to whether or not Casey Anthony should have her own article, but in the meantime the redirect should read #Redirect Casey Anthony trial to avoid a double redirect. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I attempted to do that...but saw that the page is currently locked. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Double redirect needs to be fixed promptly.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been done, by User:Ronhjones -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In progress: Presented and Excluded from trial
I'm not sure if these two subsections are still under work, so my posting of this info may be premature. If so, then ignore my comments and/or delete them (if that's possible). At any rate, I wanted to point out a couple of things. First, there was a ton of evidence presented to the jury which is not included in the "presented at trial" section. Furthermore, some of the items mentioned in the "excluded from trial" were actually included in the trial and presented to the jury. The computer image attributed to Ricardo Morales (which contains the words "win her over...with chloroform") is one such example. In fact, Jose Baez (and then the Judge) asked the jury if they could see the image when it was "published" to them on their screens in the jury box.

Another problem is that some of the links for citations do not match the content of some sentences to which they are suffixed. To use the same example, the citation (number 59) for Morales' image is a news article also regarding George Anthony's hospitalization and related suicide attempt. If you examine some of the other citations/links you will see they are improperly cited as well. Some are off by a single digit (e.g. number 61 seems like it should be numbered 60), while others have been moved around (e.g. number 60 seems like it should be numbered 54 or 55). I can only guess that there has been a large amount of cutting and pasting, thus resulting in this confusion.

If I start moving things around then it may upset the people who are still working on these two subsections, so I will leave it alone for now... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, ThisLaughingGuyRightHere. See what I stated above in the section. No one will mind if you are moving things to the correct spot and/or are fixing references. Please do. If you are wondering about Bradley's admission being in the Excluded section, that was extensively discussed above (as shown in the CNN article section). As I'm sure you know, Bradley's admission was not presented to the jury at trial; it was actually withheld by the prosecution (even if they say they say were going to tell the jury). This is why myself and a few other editors agreed that it belongs in the Excluded section. As a compromise, we do mention in the Criminal trial section that Bradley later admitted that his calculation was wrong, and point people to the in-depth paragraph about that in the Excluded section. I'll go ahead and move the computer image information to the Presented section. Flyer22 (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the Morales issue. As for there being a ton of evidence presented to the jury, yes, as stated in the, 400 pieces of evidence were used at trial. If these items were used at trial, doesn't this mean they were also presented to the jury? And if they were, how come we didn't see all this evidence during the live airing? At least, I don't remember seeing anything close to that much evidence used. There was often just a repeat of the same items. But either way, we should not include all 400 pieces in this Wikipedia article. A summary at the top of the Presented at trial section saying "400 pieces of evidence were used at trial [etc., etc, etc.]" would suffice. It might also be best to rename the subsections to Presented to the jury and Excluded from the jury, especially if some pieces were used at trial but were somehow not presented to the jury, which confuses me. Perhaps you can give clarity on this, ThisLaughingGuyRightHere? Flyer22 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pieces of evidences include every bag, every box, every chart, every report, every hair sample, parts of the skelton that were found in one place are counted seperately from those found in another place, etc. - literary everything you saw in that pile in front of the camera and some you didn't. Multiple pieces were actually shown at one time. Every item counts as one piece of evidence, that is why there seems to be so many.  The crime scene alone produces maybe hundreds. Mugginsx (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi flyer. I too am confused. I only used the phrase "included in the trial and presented to the jury" because it was used above by other people. I saw, for example, the Winnie the pooh fender (or was it called a "bumper"?) as well as one of the white laundry (or was it a travel) bags being presented to the jury by Ashton during his closing arguments, however, I don't recall seeing those items "moved in to evidence" during open court. So, at some point they were "moved in", but I don't know when or how that occurred. It would be nice to find a legal document that lists all 400 pieces of evidence so we can know for sure which ones were presented to the jury and which ones were merely "moved in".


 * Based upon my memory, the only 2 items in the "excluded" subsection which actually belong there are the diary entry and Bradley's admission. All of the others currently in the "excluded" subsection were actually presented to the jury. Of course, the question arises if the diary entry was actually "moved in to evidence", which is why I stated it would be nice to find a list of all those 400 pieces-then we could know if the diary was even "included in the trial" in the first place. From what I can tell from reading the article about the diary entry, it sounds like this was an item that the detectives uncovered during their investigation into Casey, but for some reason, the prosecution chose not to present it to the jury during the trial. Again, that makes me wonder if it was ever "moved in to evidence". I agree, not all 400 pieces should be mentioned, otherwise the "evidence" section would be so big that it would require an article itself. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, confusion all around, LOL. I trust what you say about the only two items belonging in the Excluded section, especially given the CNN source cited in the CNN section above, and am of course okay with you correcting that. You certainly don't have to ask to correct things in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If i am being intrusion here I will stop editing this section but if I can help here goes - articles are moved into evidence at the time the witness is on the witness stand and the lawyer asks the judge if it can be presented. If there is no objection by the other side's counsel, they the judge usually agrees and it is given a number at that time - you may remember them giving numbers to items presented at that time.  I do not know where there is a list of those particular items except in the court documents.  It is possible that some may be mentioned in the papers, maybe all.  There is a tremendous gap in what were items of evidence and what were actually introduced in court, agreed upon by the Judge, given a number, and questioning done having to do with that item.  Some may have been agreed upon in advance or objected to prejudical value, or for a whole host of other reasons.  This could have been done in pre-trial hearings, etc.  That is the usual sequence. Mugginsx (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight. I am learning more about the law as I continue my efforts into this case. I am aware there was a pre-trial hearing on the evidence itself. In fact, there were a series of videos on youtube which were labeled with those exact words, something like "pre-trial evidence hearing". I recall the videos were poor quality but very long, several hours in fact. I don't know if they are still there or not since it has been awhile that I have visited youtube. At any rate, I will start to fix the link errors and look more into these issues. Thanks again. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still tons of videos on the trial at U-tube. I listened yesterday for about 2 hours and that was just Bradley's testimony and Baez closing statement.  I will look for a list somewhere that's easier if you want, can't promise I'll find it but if I do I will give it to you. Can't do much of anything in this 97 degree weather outside.  Mugginsx (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is one website http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2011/march/235474/Photo-Gallery:-Casey-Anthony-trial-evidence-crime-scene-items  here is another that purports to have 500 crime scene phots, including diary note but I do not know if that was presented at trial.  anyway, here is that site http://connect.in.com/casey-anthony-crime-scene-photos/images-casey-anthony-update-10-march-2009-humbleopinion-friends-1-1030364136809.html  - am not sure if all of these were admitted into evidence - I do not think the check cashing photos were.  They would be prejudical evidence not relating to the murder trial.  Got to go now, or rather my dog has to.  Mugginsx (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And lets not forget, presented at trial but then the jury was told to ignore the evidence, the Krsytal Holloway testimony on George's statement of "an accident that snowballed out of control" being the most infamous. If things not presented at trial deserve mentioning, then highly notable things presented and ruled inadmissable do to, especially when they reflected the defenses main argument "an accident that snowballed out of control." I'm still waiting for Mugginsx to present WP policy quotations to support that even though hundreds of WP:RS have noted this testimony, it's against BLP to use it because it charges George will a crime. Oi! When the time comes, we'll get some BLP experts in on that one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your mixing apples and oranges again. The only evidence in that testimony was her sworn statement given under oath to police which proved she lied to Baez and the Inquirer.  Fortunately for her, she changed her testimony to reflect her original sworn statement or she could have been held for perjury - and - another charge - the same charge Casey was found guilty of:  giving false information to law enforcement.
 * If you had agreed to re-write the description of the testimony the way it actually happened, or had not resisted the rehabilitated paragraph I put in, there would not have been a giant BLP issue. You resisted, I took it all out, which is what I was suppposed to do. Mugginsx (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess we can all go back and re-read the above (when the heat diminishes and I can get back to my own computer which is far more utilitarian for research/editing purposes), but I was under the impression you wanted no mention of what she said at all because of the alleged BLP violation. Therefore I was stepping back til had more time to try again in a more appropriate spot than my initial try, which of course became the newly titled subsection on excluded evidence. If that's no longer an issue, I'll revisit the sources. The important thing to the trial is that the jury (and the world) heard her say it George had said something about, despite some framing inconsistencies, it being an "accident that snowballed out of control," which also was Baez' mantra. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it belongs in Excluded from the trial Section unless under Presented and Excluded sub-section. Technically speaking, the testimony was allowed to go forward, it was not "excluded".  As I have said before, Krystal's final statement under oath was what mattered.  Ultimately, the judge told the jury to disregard all of her testimony because she went back and forth UNDER OATH in testimony before the jury.  Since they were under oath they were called "prior inconsistent statements".  It depends upon what the editors mean as Excluded evidence.  Is the Section meant to list evidence the jurors never heard - or is it evidence presented but told by the judge to disreagard.  I have not been involved in that section of editing so I cannot answer where it goes.   The main thing about the BLP issue is that the testimony must show that Krystal's final admission under oath - that George said "He thought it was an accident that snowballed out of control.  It has a totally different meaning and is what the BLP issue is all about.  Apart from this particular issue, I think there needs to be a consensus as to what exactly is meant by Excluded from the trial. Mugginsx (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Carol, there is no reason why you can not put the Krystal Hollway information in, it just HAS to be full and complete. You must say that what her final statement was.  That should remove the BLP issue.  You may have strong feelings about what really happened but you cannot put your opinion or half of the testimony in.  It must be the complete testimony.  OK?  That is not to say that somone at sometime will again challenge it.  That is the Wiki way of it.  But I would not challenge it. Mugginsx (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that we should go ahead and rename the subsections to Presented to the jury and Excluded from the jury, as I suggested above. The diary information can go in the main section, which should be used as a summary about the 400 pieces of evidence that were presented. The problem with all of these subsection headings and mentioning some of the evidence is that we aren't sure about some of it, per above. It's confusing indeed. But at least the alternate titles can reflect things more accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Mugginsx (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to out-dent this, but getting back to the bigger picture. I feel the evidence section is very anemic considering how much was presented in court and considering how there is only two small paragraphs about it (more on that in a minute). I was thinking of mentioning more of the evidence presented, like the videos of shopping, the photos of her partying, the photo of the tattoo, the trunk liner, the garbage, the spare tire cover, the incident with the shovel, photos of Henkel duct tape and mention of the gas cans, etc. I don't currently have sources for any of those other than the court transcripts so I would have to put all that together. At any rate, how do we feel about adding more evidence to the evidence section?

Also, about the excluded evidence. There was more of that as well. The jury was told she had 6 prior felony convictions during the same time as Caylee's death, but the jury was excluded from being told what those 6 convictions were. Of course, we know those were for stealing checks from Amy Huizinga. Also, the jury was able to listen to the 911 calls from Cindy in which she stated she wanted Casey arrested for stealing money from her (Cindy)—again, we learn later she (Cindy) was referring to checks (and was it also credit cards?)— and for stealing the car (i.e. not having permission to drive it because of the smell in the trunk, and Cindy later saying she didn't want to call the police immediately because she wanted to give Casey a chance to explain herself). The jury was told to ignore those 'charges' (on the 911 calls) during jury deliberations that were to occur later. Also, out of the truckloads and truckloads of documents, there was a report by Melich of one of her ex-boyfriends (Morales, Grund, or Rusiciano) in which he is interviewing one of them and says to Melich that he (boyfriend) was told by Casey that she would give her baby Chloroform (which she referred to as "baby medicine") to put her daughter to sleep because Caylee, apparently, liked to stay up. That was excluded from the jury - I guess because that would make the jury think it was an accident rather than murder, but then again if its aggravated manslaughter and its for someone under age 12, then in Florida it still qualifies as Murder in the first, at least according to Judge Perry. It seems reasonable to conclude Casey found out about Chloroform and its effects after she saw Morales' Chloroform "joke" image. I know at this point all of this sounds like WP:OR, but I read the report myself and I am sure, with some time, I can find the report again.

About the excluded paragraph: The link for the 'no consensus...on decomposition' sentence regarding Dr. Furton doesn't actually say that if you read the news article. The news article discusses many things about decomposition but not that specific statement. I did finally, last night, find a link which does state that and I will be adding it in to the article. Once that is done, further statements made in the citation about decomposition can be added to the paragraph. Additionally, even though there was grumblings from the prosecution during court about whether Dr. Furton changed his opinions (and thus his testimony) from what he said in his deposition, the Judge found no problem (other than withdrawing an exhibit) and no change in Dr. Furton's opinion (even though he performed additional research), so Judge Perry allowed the questioning of Dr. Furton (in front of the jury) to proceed. Thus, in my opinion, the first two paragraphs in the Excluded section actually belong in the Presented at Trial section. I will make those updates when I can get to it, objections not withstanding. Finally, no, I don't have a problem with renaming those sections to "presented" and "excluded from the jury". I've always felt that was a more accurate title from the beginning.ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Update 1: Nobody is objecting so I went ahead and changed the subsection names. Thanks Flyer for the good idea. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Update 2: OK, I added the link which affirms Dr. Furton's statements about 'no consensus on decomposition'. At this stage, more sentences could be added about "decomposition" testimony if someone wanted... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ThisLaughingGuyRightHere - I can see you have done alot of work on the sections and they're looking fine. I can appreciate how much work each item is taking to make it accurate. Too tired to work today but wanted to praise you.  Mugginsx (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Need links to lists of evidence
It would be helpful if the text refs and/or (depending on relevance) the external links linked to full lists of the evidence. I'm going to check how complete the lists currently mentioned in the article are a little later. But if "ThisLaughingGuyRightHere" (hopefully not Mr. Ashton himself :-) or anyone else has some lists s/he has added to the article, or that are floating around the talk pages, perhaps they could be added here? I'll do my own list in a little while. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. No I'm not Mr. Ashton. I thought it was quite a moment during the trial, so I'm using the reference here at WP. Yes, I plan on adding/editing the evidence section as I go back and review the video footage of the case, but right now I don't have anything. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviews are good reminders or verifiers = or in some cases disprovers of what WP:RS said happened at trial. (Or way to get a correct quote to find a WP:RS that correctly states the case.) But should not be our number one source. And always note in a ref the time that the evidence in question appears, for the occassional person who might want to verify. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New civil suit not listed... and media deals
I'm just searching around to see what new is going on with this situation since the trial ended since what is being discussed above is sounding like the same arguments in different ways being told. So, I thought maybe a break from the above for awhile to look at some new information that should go into the article might help get everyone back on the same page again. Anyways here is the bounty hunter saying he is suing Casey Anthony and her attorneys. I think this should go into the civil section of the article but I'm not being bold here on purpose. Articles like this don't need bold editors as much as it needs consensus and discussion. So I'm skipping Bold, Revert, and going directly for discuss. :) There's more out there if anyone else wants to look too.  There are movie producers saying they got together with her for a million $ deal like this one though there has to be better difs than this one.  The movie deals have a few references going on but I'm not quite done with looking at these, the one here is just a quick pick type to show there is talking going on, yet is it true is the question I guess.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For previous discussion about her media offers/deals, see this discussion: Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 4.


 * Strict editors will want to keep out any offers that Anthony has not been reported as accepting. I disagree that we shouldn't mention that she has reportedly received all these offers. We could certainly create a summary in The Anthony family section about it, which is where I feel that the "What is Casey Anthony doing now?" information should go (except for the civil case stuff, which has its own section). Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually like that Flyer. I think it sure would fit in there. I know this is about the title of the article but we still need to have the info about the mother in it, even  if it's a brief mention.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

casey is already a convicted felon
This is the material that was put in the Verdict and Sentencing section that I was objecting to, because it is not accurate and because, even if it were - which I repeat, it is not accurate, it is in the wrong section        ;
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=441378129&oldid=441377375
 * Because the crimes she was convicted of were misdemeanors, Anthony will not suffer the substantial loss of civil rights (including the right to vote) that is imposed on convicted felons in Florida.

she was convicted of 13 counts of criminal check fraud. http://www.uslaw.com/library/Criminal_Law/Casey_Anthony_Check_Fraud_Documents.php?item=262927 http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-25/justice/florida.casey.anthony.court_1_george-and-cindy-anthony-caylee-check-fraud?_s=PM:CRIME http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?id=11881780&q=casey+anthony+check+fraud&p=1&st=1&sm=user http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-25/justice/florida.casey.anthony.court_1_george-and-cindy-anthony-caylee-check-fraud?_s=PM:CRIME http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/casey-anthony-guilty-check-fraud-0126 http://www.cayleedaily.com/2011/07/casey-anthony-released-from-orange-county-jail/comment-page-32/ http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-01-25/news/os-casey-anthony-check-hearing-20100125_1_george-and-cindy-anthony-check-fraud-charges-plead


 * What's the context for this section? The article is on the Death of Caylee Anthony, not unrelated events in Casey Anthonys life.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My point was that it appeared in the Verdict and Sentencing Section. I repeat it here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=441378129&oldid=441377375
 * Because the crimes she was convicted of were misdemeanors, Anthony will not suffer the substantial loss of civil rights (including the right to vote) that is imposed on convicted felons in Florida.

hat what I took it out and was what I was talking about. That was my only concern.Mugginsx (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically it can be put under the heading 'Arrest and charges' with a note stating it wasn't involved in this case like the one they have there from her arrest for using her friend's checks and credit cards without permission, though undue weight might be involved with adding all of the above with the name of this article. It may be a reason, along with new things now coming up, to give a new article with the name of Casey Anthony. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say the opposite, a separate article would be license to fill it with unrelated unnotable events. Someone writing $650 in bad check isn't notable IMHO.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It already is in Death_of_Caylee_Anthony and specified as unrelated. FYI CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Crohnie, I thought you already knew that whether or not Casey Anthony should have an individual article is being discussed at Talk:Casey Anthony. It's rather that all of the notable/significant things relating to Caylee's death and Casey's trial belong in this article. Having too much of this in an individual article titled Casey Anthony would bring for many "BLP violation" calls. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should not be in here at all siince it is incorrect. Mugginsx (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(od) Flyer, I know about the discussion at the Casey Anthony talk page, but that doesn't mean that if things keep coming up here that it shouldn't be mentioned here that it's a possible reason for another sister article. I'm still kind of swaying back and forth on whether there should be another page. With some of the looking I did yesterday I don't see how we aren't going to get one. There are three separate people or groups of people lining up to hit her with civil actions alone. How do you figure to cover them in this article? The civil suits can be mentioned here but if they get attentions like the first case did, and you know it will, the civil stuff will have to go under her name for coverage. Add in the books and movies, and you can't bloat this article with that stuff. I don't get it when you say having an article for her is a blp vio waiting to happen. All BLP are available for violations that's why we watch them too to help keep the trash out. That isn't a good reason though not to have another article in my opinion though.

Cube lurker, this is the kind of things I think it would be useful to another article, the civil cases, movies & books deals, and other notable things that may turn up. One civil case is starting up in a couple of months, I guess we'll see what kind of attentions it gets when things start winding up towards the start of it. Her felonies on the checks and credit cards are not notable on there own but it's kind of amazing that she was being looked at for the loss of her daughter and she is out there doing felonies while all these eyes were on her already. I find that astounding that she thought she would get away with it though you're right, it's not notable on it's own.

Mugginsx, what shouldn't be in here because it's incorrect? You lost me, don't know about the others. And CarolMooreDC, I agree with you, that's what I said too. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The material is already removed, so it is now a moot point. Mugginsx (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not change references to the verdict and sentencing section again
One of the references is What was in there as Ref 89 was "ref> "Anthony Is Sentenced to 4-Year Term for Lying" - 7 July 2011 - The New York Times - Retrieved 12 July 2011. </ref"  This leads to a NYTimes log=in site. On the other hand this reference says it all (except for the appeal). "http://www.wftv.com/video/28474117/index.html"

The counts of lying to law enforcement was listed as four counts. The defense asked that it be reduced to one count, since they believe it was one lie. The judge said they were four different distinct lies. Defense argued double jeopardy (which I inserted but someone took out) - the Judge disagreed. That can only be explained by the video which is in as a reference.

The request for bifurcation had nothing to do with concurrent or consectuive sentences. It had to do with spliting the sentencing of the four counts of lying with the other matter - the request that casey reimburse the State of Fla for expenses incurred in the search for Caylee because of her lies. This was on the tape at that source. It is the first thing they discuss before sentencing. Again, that is discussed in the video reference stated above.

Several times something has been added in this section that was incorrect.

Also to Carol: Casey Anthony is already a convicted felon as stated above and even if she wasn't the information does not belong in this section. Everything that needs to be in there is already in there. OK? Mugginsx (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

'''AzureCitizen: I reinserted what I accidentally took out. my apologies.'''


 * The only thing I added was "The case went to the jury on July 4th." With ref. Because people have been confused on timeline. See below. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It appeared that you made this edit that I was referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=441378129&oldid=441377375 Because the crimes she was convicted of were misdemeanors, Anthony will not suffer the substantial loss of civil rights (including the right to vote) that is imposed on convicted felons in Florida. Mugginsx (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the right hand side is the new edit. The left hand is just what happens to be there from some previous edit. I don't put in unreferenced material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes CarolMooreDC is correct as she isn't the one who put that in. It was Rupertslander who made two quick entries to the article.  I reverted that part of it. HTH, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Carol, my apologizes. It was not you that put that information in the article.  Can we all agree that, except for the decision on the appeals, (which possibily could take years), there is really nothing else that should not be in that particular section the way it is presently headed. Mugginsx (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One never knows what might come up, but I don't see anything that needs adding at this point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The appeals could conceivably continue on for years, though I personally do not think the Florida Supreme Court will hear them and it will stop there. (But I could be wrong and have been times before on such matters).  Her attorneys have a vested interest in keeping them going as long as possible since it is her only way to invoke the "Fifth" in civil cases without "contempt" charges.  If the appeal goes on for too many years, the statute of limitations could run out on the civil charges made against her.  That is their "ultimate hope." Mugginsx (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)