Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 8

do we have a consensus on whether the civil cases should be in an article entitled death of caylee anthony?
Except for a brief mention, perhaps last paragraph in section already entitled "Civil Cases" - I do not think such information belongs in this article. I think it belongs in an article about Casey Anthony perhaps, but not in this article. I am ready to be right, wrong or outvoted. What do the editors think? Mugginsx (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel such information belongs in this article because it has to do with the case about the death of Caylee Anthony, such as all that money that was spent searching for her. How does that not belong in this article? Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is probably better suited for an article Casey Anthony. Unfortunately, several editors are preventing us from creating such an article.  So, until that issue is resolved, I say keep the information in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I too think it belongs, as long as undue weight is watched. With looking and reading the new references coming out, I really believe it's interesting and belongs in the article. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  18:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quest for knowledge - User talk:Charles Matthews had a great deal to say about that is the latest Wiki e-mail sent out to anyone who subscribes. There is way too many Wikipedia:Notability objections to articles.  He is a scholar if you look at his user page and goes on about this being a major reason for the decrease in articles and that he is thinks the standards should be broadened and the restriction relaxed.  Unfortunately, I did not save the e-mail.  I am sure it is accesible online.  I say we go ahead and try again with charles matthew's on our team.  P.S. The link is corrected to Dr. Matthews.Mugginsx (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the civil cases are part of the aftermath of the death of Caylee Anthony, tangible results that would not have occurred without the death of Caylee Anthony, and are therefore relevant to the subject. Also, the civil lawsuits may turn up new evidence and reflect the "court of public opinion" regarding culpability for the death of Caylee Anthony. Therefore, I support the inclusion of the civil lawsuits in this article, at least in summary detail. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the civil cases section. Keep it brief, unless when/if new information about what happened to Caylee comes into play, since that's the topic of the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I with you then. Mugginsx (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Need trial dates on top of section(s)
This diff is the removal of introductory dates meant to make it clear what the timeline for the information following is. At least two editors were confused at various timed about what the dates of the prosecution and defense testimonies were and other editors had to correct them. If editors are confused, more so readers. Perhaps it could be worded better, and the second redundant "defense rested" should be removed. For example:
 * The prosecution case was presented from May 24th to June 15, with 59 witnesses called for 70 different testimonies. The defense case was presented from June (15 or 16 as a ref would need to show) to June 30, with 47 witnesses called for 63 different testimonies.REF

Alternatively there could be a clearer divide between presentation of the prosecution and defense cases, with these dates and number of witnesses being first sentence of each (non-sectioned section). CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good grief, this is what I mean about you complicating every little thing. As stated in that diff, I moved the information about when the prosecution and defense rested their cases to the bottom because Baez resting his case was already mentioned there and it did not make sense to leave the line about Casey Anthony not testifying to itself. It also makes more sense to have the dates they began at the top, and the dates they rested at the bottom. The dates they rested being at the bottom gives a good lead-in to the Closing arguments section. Two editors may have been confused before, but that's because all these specific dates were not included. Now they are. So what is the problem? Exactly how is it a problem to have the dates they rested be at the bottom of the Criminal trial section, when it is chronological and gives finality to that section? Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Flyer, it sounds better and is much more logical and sensible the way you have explained it. Mugginsx (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So it isn't apparent why to two editors that the five paragraphs about the prosecution case might be introduced with the dates and number of witnesses and the two paragraphs (hopefully to be exanded soon) about the defense case might be introduced with the dates and number of witnesses? Hmmm, is there a WP:CommonSenseNoticeboard? :-)
 * Anyway, this obviously is part of the larger problem of there being little presentation of the defense case or witnesses. But I haven't even gotten around to finding the lists of evidence yet, so let's not talk further in generalities. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At some point, and I think perhaps we are getting near to it, this article will be overlong. If you look at other sensational recent cases such as David Westerfield, Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, etc., they are not nearly as long and detailed.  Not that I think they are perfect analogies - not at all - but, let's face it - if we get into every detail of this case the article is going to be overlong by Wiki standards. I think it is good to strive for perfectionalism, but at some point, there has to be a compromise of sort, and I do not mind saying, I do not have any idea when that would be.  Just a thought. Mugginsx (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and and on my list of things to do here is to post my list of stuff that needs to be removed. Who the former attorneys were (except perhaps in a reference/footnote) for example not real important. Duplicative information about info presented at trial in two sections not necessary. Putting in "evidence" against the defendant that was never brought into the trial in any form, while excluding important defense [added] witnesses/rebuttals/arguments seems to be a total violation of BLP. There's alot to clean up here.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to infer that ANYTHING needs to be removed; it was just an observation that, at some point in the future, we might want to look at the eventual length of the article. Mugginsx (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At some point when enough missing stuff is entered, it will be apparent what needs to be cut. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. That is generally the way of it with all articles. Mugginsx (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc, you are the one that needs to check WP:Common sense. Most of your suggestions make no sense and/or are just downright mind-boggling, such as your insistence that the dates both sides rested need to be at the top of the Criminal trial section. I explained my position well for why it is not needed there and why it makes more sense at the bottom. Further, you keep saying there is "little presentation of the defense case or witnesses." That is not true. They have equal representation in this article. And you already know there is no "defense evidence." You also keep bringing up issues that have already been resolved. Which is tired! As tired as you promoting your drastic redesign just about every time you show up here on this talk page. Nothing needs to be cut.


 * And as for "if we get into every detail of this case"... We don't need to "get into every detail of the case." All aspects are covered. Wikipedia is not about "getting into every detail." It's about summarizing the significant aspects, and we have done that. If anything needs to expanded on, then we do that. But this article is not titled Casey Anthony. We are not going to be following every move Casey Anthony makes in this article. There is no need for this article to become too much bigger. And per WP:SIZE, it's not that big at all. However, there's a reason it's bigger than the articles for the cases mentioned above; the lead and Public and media reactions section make that clear. Flyer22 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec's):::::::::Missing stuff? You do see how long this article has become? There can't be that much missing from it. It looks pretty balanced to me. Remember we don't have to have the same many words for the prosecution and the defense, that's not what balance means. We just need to make sure that each side gets told. The prosecution gave a lot more evidence than the defense so what they said is going to be more in the article, but it still looks balanced. I do agree though that the former attorneys is trivia and needs to be removed as unnecessary per trivia. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I explained why it is inevitale that the defense section would be smaller in content. They really did not present a case, nor was it their job to. I must agree with Flyer.  As the vote (in which I did not partake out of my own ignorance that it was going on) was to maintain this title, we cannot make it a continuing story about Casey. I also disagree about the changes proposed; I think the article makes better sense the way Flyer maintains for the reading of the general public.  Let's keep in mind, if you will, that we are extremely familiar with all of this because we have lived with it far beyond the general public. Mugginsx (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(let's see if we can get the indents better for easier reading) I agree with you about the defense not presenting a case which is why the article is the way it is with the prosecution having more and defense less. As for the continuing of the Casey sagga, we just don't know yet. Three civil cases so far being filed against her about this case, all of them about being lied to so that they would look for her missing daughter that she knew was already dead. We are just going to have to see what else comes up about this. I guess I have to agree it's too soon to start anything new though. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The civil cases that involve Casey testifying could be delayed until the appeals are finished. It could take years. Mugginsx (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It could take years, but I'm seriously doubting that it will. She admitted she lied, how will she be able to now deny that she didn't lie...I guess it will depend on how well her attorney's can spin it.  Could be interesting to hear though.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph should be removed
I think the first paragraph under Criminal trial should be removed because it's really trivia and not needed for this story to be told. Did these attorneys do anything other than withdraw from the case that is notable to the article? If so, then add what they did, if not the whole paragraph isn't really needed in my opinion. Thoughts? -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully disagree about that particular item. It is a small mention but important to the continuity of the trial.  As long as it does not become bigger, it should be allright, I think.  Mugginsx (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it but if everyone thinks it's better with it, feel free to revert me. I think it reads better without it though but I don't mind being reverted at all. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I put it back in but I agree with you that there need be no further mention of it. Once for continuity is enough. Mugginsx (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)I still think it reads better without it and it's information not necessary. What is notable about these attorneys to keep them in the article though?  Did they do anything with the trial?  If so, that needs to be clarified. If the only thing they did was quit the case, then I still think it needs to go.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just realized this, that this is also out of sequence in the dates. The jury selection started May 9, the attorneys started to quit June 30th.  So if it's going to stay, this needs to be adjusted. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think continuity without too much enumeration is important for eventual "good" article status.
 * Extraneous info doesn't help achieve good article status. These people all withdrew long before the trial. If the info belongs anywhere, it belongs where they are mentioned in the article, in the text or in a reference/footnote. Why keep trivia? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you know about getting an article to Good Article status? It's not trivia at all to mention the first teams on the case, but whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone could put in that it's her first team of attorney's or something to help the readers understand why these departing attorneys are important to note? We know the case from doing all this reading, and some from watching it on TV I guess, but some readers may not have been watching it so they may not understand, like I didn't.  Any ideas on how we could make it clearer?  I couldn't think of a way to do it without it be original research.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

400 pieces of evidence - what about witnesses?
As reverted this now introduces the evidence section saying:
 * At the Casey Anthony trial 400 pieces of evidence were presented. Some exhibits were not admitted into evidence.[45]

The text its based on reads:
 * After more than 33 days of testimony, 400 pieces of evidence and sweeping promises from attorneys to prove how 2-year-old Caylee Anthony died, neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys have provided concrete evidence showing whether the girl was killed by her mother.Ref

I can see why I got confused in trying to translate it properly: 1. The sentence itself shows the writer is confused about who presents evidence and how, so is this even a good source for the number 400? Who knows what hat they pulled it out of? 2. Are witnesses evidence? In any case, why not mention numbers of witnesses and testimonies? A specific number of prosecution and defense witnesses and testimonies are now shunted to the end. That info belongs right up here. Otherwise you end up with a defacto POV prosecution bias ignoring all the defense rebuttal challenges of the prosecution evidence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The defense did not have a rebuttal. Mugginsx (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we could use for some key witness testimony as well. Two off the top of my head are Dr. G who said the baby was murdered and world famous Dr. Spitz who said there was no evidence of murder when he examined the skull & remains. I think the police interviews of Casey herself would also make for due "testimony" mentioned in the case. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For what seems to be the upteenth time I'm responding to Carol's rehashing of a topic, there is no bias or problem in having the dates both teams rested their cases, as well as how many witnesses they called, at the bottom of the Criminal trial section. ...it [does] not make sense to leave the line about Casey Anthony not testifying to itself. It... ...makes more sense to have the dates they began at the top, and the dates they rested at the bottom. The dates they rested being at the bottom gives a good lead-in to the Closing arguments section. Exactly how is it a problem to have the dates they rested be at the bottom of the Criminal trial section, when it is chronological and gives finality to that section? No bias or BLP violation in that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusing evidence items
The arrest for forgery is mentioned twice. I would suggest moving the "Arrests and charges" heading up above the paragraph that begins "Casey Anthony was first arrested…" and consolidating the two bits about forgery.

The DNA section seems to imply air samples were subject to DNA analysis, which is not possible. What was sampled? What was it introduced to prove?

Also the "Excluded from jury" section now contains two items, the diary and the computer search. From the text it seems the computer search was presented to the jury and the paragraph on the diary ends by saying Baez "filed a motion to exclude it from evidence, which the judge denied." Was it introduced or not? If there is only one item that was not introduced, we don't need the two sections. It's not clear to me why evidence that the judge did not find admissible belongs in the article at all.--agr (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be for taking out ALL information about the check charges. What do they have to do with the Death of Caylee Anthony? Absolutely nothing. Removed it. Mugginsx (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The only thing I remember being DNA tested was the duct tape. I don't remember anything else having DNA on it to be tested.  I could be wrong and more could have been but that's the only thing I remember.  The DNA though tested back to the person who was doing the test, not to anyone involved in the case.  Tainted evidence for reasons unknown was said. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Crohnie, don't forget the mitrochrondial dna test of Caylee's bones to determine paternity as per the charges of incest and molestation by Defense. Mugginsx (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, forgot that, your correct on that. I was thinking more of DNA on evidence for the cause of death. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * With over 400 items of evidence, it is a wonder anyone can remember any of it. It almost is too much for the mind to retain, (at least mine).  I really think that the sections have most of the important evidence in it but, like I said, it is all a wash of too much information for me to keep in my head. Mugginsx (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ArnoldReinhold, per other discussions above, it's already clear why the Evidence section was split into two sections. Some of us want to cover some types of "excluded evidence." And it was stated that the different types should be made clear. Thus, subheadings were suggested. With Bradley, most of us felt that Bradley's admission should not be in the Criminal trial section, since it was excluded from trial/the jury. A compromise was made, and the Criminal trial section now touches on Bradley's admission but also points people to the in-depth information about that (in the Excluded from jury section). And, yes, while the computer search was presented to the jury...the correct information about it was not. That was withheld from the jury, which the Excluded section makes clear. What do you find confusing about that? Just because we start off saying that Bradley's testimony about the 84 searches was presented to the jury? If we do not begin with that, how can we, in that section, adequately describe the admission that was excluded from the jury?


 * Also, some of us feel that the diary information should stay. We are waiting for more information about that and other pieces of evidence, to see what was excluded from evidence, the trial or the jury, etc. Although...since Baez filed a motion to exclude the diary from evidence and the judge denied it, we can pretty much assume it was included as evidence. See the section to understand all the complications with presenting any of the evidence. And keep in mind that some things have already been discussed and it is best to check the talk page for those previous discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Flyer, if you have not already found another good reference as to the diary and whether or not it was presented before a jury there is always the many videos of the trial at U-tube and other places. Just do not know who or when it was presented or I would go over some of the videos.  Dog has to go to the vet, yet again, so not today. Mugginsx (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that a lot of editors have made this kind of objection on confusing evidence and been argued down, repeatedly reverted and left the article. Considering all the trouble I had just getting a mention in the trial section that the chloroform search info presented by the prosecution was wrong (I had to go to WP:BLPN), and how much I had to fight with Flyer and Mugginsx on that, I think we do have a problem with some editors rather possessive behavior. If some people would commit to stay we might actually get this info better presented. It’s a long term challenge. I’ve barely begun checking all references (and there are errors there) and by putting up a list of trial evidence so we can have a perspective on all of it. Do not let yourself be discouraged and driven off the article if you want to see positive changes. Editors who stick around do have recourse if such problems continue.
 * On the fraud case issue, I would like to point out that I put all the info together in one paragraph at this diff. Someone reverted it.   I missed the revert. In any case, It read: Casey Anthony was arrested again on August 29, 2008, on charges of forgery, fraudulent use of personal information, petty theft for forging nearly $650 worth of checks and using her friend's credit cards without permission. [Ref] Orange County police said the charges were "unrelated to the investigation."[Ref]  In January 2010 she pled guilty to check fraud, having made full restitution. The judge sentenced her to time served.[Ref]
 * I think a shorter version making these points would be appropriate so people don’t complain about what we are leaving out/covering up. It would read something like: During this period Casey Anthony was arrested on check fraud charges in the amount of $700, but police said the charges were "unrelated to the investigation."[Two refs] In January 2010 she pled guilty to check fraud, having made full restitution. The judge sentenced her to time served.[One Ref] Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point that "many editors" have not "made made this kind of objection on confusing evidence and been argued down, repeatedly reverted and left the article." Likewise, there have not been "many" who have stated that the diary information should go. Carolmooredc needs to reconsider what "many" is. Or at least provide diffs for the "many." To shine some truth on her statement about that, the Evidence section being divided is a fairly new addition to this article, and no editors had a problem with it being divided. Carolmooredc even supported the division. It was rather a matter of having accurate headings for the text, and no one objected to things being accurate either (though there was disagreement on the Bradley issue). ArnoldReinhold is the first to object to the subheadings. One reason the subheadings were even suggested is because Carolmooredc is one of the two editors who complained about the Evidence section not being clear on what evidence was used at trial, etc. I suggested making this clear either through text or through subheadings. Obviously, subheadings were chosen. But we can get rid of the subheadings, for all I care, as long as it is made clear how each piece of evidence we include factored into the case. And per the section above, it is clear we have things to sort out about that. Detail on Bradley's admission can/should stay in the Evidence section, where everyone except Carolmooredc agreed it fits best. I also point out that this information being excluded from the Criminal trial section was never proven as a BLP issue, not even at the BLP Noticeboard; we only came up with a compromise to appease Carolmooredc and one other editor, but mostly Carolmooredc. She was even combative in accepting that compromise. And per what she stated above about "[it] being a long-term challenge," as though we are the problematic editors while everything she says is right and is therefore best (even though she has poor formatting skills/suggestions), it is clear that she is only interested in getting her way and hardly ever compromises.


 * But don't worry, Carolmooredc, after I get one other article to GA status, I'll likely be leaving Wikipedia for good. Then you can do whatever you want with this article, as long as other editors don't fight you on it. It's time to break my addiction to Wikipedia, a place that... Well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe everyone should take a deep breath and focus on improving the article, not past battles on the talk page. I came here from BLPN and my main concern is BLP issues. For starters, I am trying to understand what the article says, and I find it confusing. The Excluded heading might be appropriate if there was stuff under it that was unambiguously excluded from the jury that nonetheless belongs in our article. However that is not what is currently under that heading. If the computer search testimony was presented to the jury but incorrectly, then that should be made clear, but I don't see how that testimony belongs in an Excluded from the jury section. The diary has a similar problem. If we don't know if the jury saw it or not, we should not imply that they didn't by putting under the Excluded heading. BLP says we must get material about a living person right, not stick it in and fix it later. There is a separate issue of whether material excluded from the jury belongs in the article at all. If we don't have room for all the evidence that was presented to the jury, why devote space to evidence that wasn't? Maybe there is a justification, but it should be made explicit. --agr (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being another voice making the case on evidence. Now that I see that the first fraud sentence was in there twice, do you have any thoughts on whether two sentences - even as a reference - are necessary just so that people don't think we are hiding something? Or restart arguments about putting it in? It's a relatively minor point, but just wondering. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ArnoldReinhold, it would be easy to "chill out" if Carolmooredc didn't keep rehashing the same things over and over again. No matter how many times most people state that the article is balanced or that a section is fine, she will continue to restate her disagreement...as though she will eventually get us to change our minds. Sigh.


 * Moving on: How is it not made clear that the computer search testimony that was presented to the jury was incorrect? I'm not understanding your confusion because it's made clear in both the Evidence and Criminal trial sections that the "84 searches" information was incorrect. I'm not seeing how it doesn't belong in the Excluded from jury section, considering that it was excluded from the jury. The testimony is in the Criminal trial section. It's the detail about the admission that is not. You are acting as though we shouldn't mention anything about the testimony in the Excluded from jury section, simply because of its title. That's what I don't get, and you are confusing me. Because in order to adequately detail Bradley's admission being excluded from the jury, we have to mention what he was correcting -- which was the "84 searches." Mentioning that there does not make the Excluded from jury heading any less accurate. And the diary information you speak of? We're pretty sure that the jury did not see it...since there are no reliable sources discussing that they did. What we do know is that it was admitted into evidence.


 * About not having room for all the evidence that was presented to the jury? We have enough room, but we shouldn't detail it all. Just as we shouldn't detail all 400 pieces. We should summarize. I already started the summary yesterday by adding the following line: "400 pieces of evidence comprised the Anthony case. Some evidence was either withheld from trial and/or the jury." My view is... If we are going to mention that 400 pieces were used, which I feel that we should, why not mention a few of the "excluded" pieces? We are only mentioning the most relevant ones, such as the diary that was reported on extensively and had an FBI investigation.


 * The subheadings. If everyone here is okay with removing them, then I say go ahead. I am tired of defending them for reasons I feel are quite clear. But, like I stated, if we aren't going to use subheadings, it should be made clear how each piece of evidence we detail factored into the case. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the DNA statements should be grouped together, I agree. The DNA, from my understanding, is in regards to the hair strand found in the trunk, versus any DNA found in the supposed decompositional fluid "staining" (trunk liner) or the duct tape. Keep in mind, those paragraphs were written a very long time ago (and not by me). In fact, the diary paragraph (although its a skeleton of its former self) has been in the article for at least 2 years (or more) so these paragraphs need to be massaged and re-groomed to flow with the rest of the article.


 * I will mention the same thing I was told: if you see a way to fix it, then please do. I can lump the sentences together and form a new paragraph but there may be sentences that are not cited, thus solving one problem but creating two or three more in its place. However, I guess it has to be done so I might give it a shot.


 * The excluded subsection contains two paragraphs about things not presented to the jury. The diary was not introduced to the jury, to answer your question. Thus, its in the excluded subsection. I don't understand how that isn't clear to you. I guess you would prefer if the subsections were named "Introduced to Jury" and "Not introduced to Jury"? We already had a discussion on what the subsections should be (re)named. Again, the diary was a part of the evidence in the hands of the prosecution (who received it from the detectives no doubt) but was "not introduced to the jury".


 * This all touches on what was raised earlier. In other words, the prosecution, for whatever reason, chose to only "introduce to the jury" certain pieces of evidence [in open court] out of the hundreds they had. I hope that answers some of your questions. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, the diary section is in "excluded evidence" but the last ref says that the defense motion to exclude it was denied. So basically we still don't even know if it was in or not. But who needs references when you can assume what is the case?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasnt presented to the jury (for whatever reason the prosecution chose), but it wasnt excluded from the case, as was ruled. Thus, its evidence, but simply "not presented" evidence. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's original research to say it was not presented unless you can find a source that says it was or was not. You can't expect editors or readers to listen to the whole trial to verify one way or the other. It's just not important enough to be in there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's "just not important enough to be in there" is your opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with AGR that a)the article is very confusing (and excessively bloated imo), b)testimony related to the computer search stuff should only appear with the rest of the evidence presented to jury, and c)including any prose about "evidence not presented to the jury" should have a very good justification for it being there. IMO, that sort of thing should wait for proper analysis by reliable sources (and I don't mean CNN, etc., merely commenting on it's existence and that it's in the possession of the prosecution - this tells us nothing of substance or relevance) in order for us to properly judge its significance. Including such information, without some RS authoritatively commenting on what it means and why it is important, smacks of WP:OR (and possibly POV pushing) to me in that "we think it's important, therefore it should be in, even though we're not sure what it means exactly".  Shirt  waist &#9742;  04:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ArnoldReinhold didn't even say "the article is very confusing." He is speaking of one section, which can easily be fixed by removing the subheadings. The text there now clearly tells us something about the diary's relevance, and there are reliable sources authoritatively commenting on what it means and why it is important. This of course needs to be expanded on. It's not WP:OR to include this information. Shirtwaist needs to read WP:OR again. Including it under the heading it's under without a reliable source saying it was excluded from the jury? Maybe. But not including information about it that is reliably sourced. And, yeah, POV-pushing to include it? The same can be said about POV-pushing to exclude it. You stated before that you aren't accusing me of anything, but you keep making vague or rather clear accusations. Four editors want the diary in. Two (possibly three if ArnoldReinhold feels that way) want it out. And, everyone, if you must, do read what I stated to Shirtwaist at the section above, seeing as I will not be repeating myself, even though he seems intent on doing so.


 * I will go ahead and remove the subheadings so that all Shirtwaist has left to complain about is the diary inclusion. Carolmooredc will continue to complain about anything when it gets in the way of what she wants. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like the same things keep being raised when they've already been addressed. I think I'm going insane. This keeps going 'round and 'round. At this point and time I guess I can only say that I certainly do hope editors are familiar with the trial, especially if they are going to be editing the article related to the trial. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going insane, just as much as I am, because that's what Carolmooredc wants -- to wear us down until she gets her way regarding just about everything. It's like I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, I find that rather than replying to very specific points, you just keep yelling that there's already a consensus, reverting what I do and attacking me. Chaotic editing produces confusing, chaotic articles, like this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not yelling, and consensus is not the only or main point I keep making when disagreeing with some of your edits. I don't even argue that most of the time. I keep complaining about your complaining. I sometimes cite the fact that the things you keep bringing up have already been settled or that your edits are disputed. When your edits are disputed, you don't just keep putting them back into the article. You should try and gain consensus on talk page. And when consensus is against your edits, you let it go. You don't keep rehashing the same thing over and over again. Why should I reply to "very specific points" that I have already replied to ad nauseum? Need I remind you that WP:Consensus is a policy? It's not a personal attack to point out that you do not listen and only want things your way. You are making the article more chaotic and problematic than it has to be. Chaotic editing indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Flyer - " For starters, I am trying to understand what the article says, and I find it confusing." - agr. This is what agr said, and this is what I agreed with. I think you're taking this all a little too seriously Flyer. You might consider taking agr's advice about taking a deep breath and focusing on improving the article, and toning down the drama in talk.   Shirt  waist &#9742;  10:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shirtwaist, ArnoldReinhold also specified what he finds confusing and it isn't the whole article, which isn't confusing in the least. You think I'm taking this a little too seriously? I think you are, with all the calls of possible BLP violations and POV-pushing and whatnot where such things do not exist. Obviously, the same goes for Carolmooredc. Times (x) that. If anyone needs to take a deep breath and regroup, it's her. Constantly rehashing settled issues, threatening or in fact taking issues to the BLP Noticeboard, some other board, or administrators and wasting everyone's time when she doesn't get her way, is not productive editing and therefore is not productive to this article. The problem in a nutshell? She does not truly listen to others, ignores consensus and tries to WP:OWN articles. Laying things out on the talk page and all but demanding that these things should or must be done to this article is not working with others, which is what Wikipedia is about. So, really, you can try to make me out as the problem all you want, but our editing histories show who's the actual problematic editor. And just so you know, we are supposed to take articles like this seriously. "A little too seriously" is anyone's definition. Flyer22 (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mix of pre-trial and trial evidence confusing and possibly inaccurate
The third and fourth paragraphs of "presented to jury" actually emphasizes evidence available before trial,-- "On November 26, 2008, officials released 700 pages of documents etc." and "On February 18, 2009, documents released by the State Attorney's Office in Florida etc." That documents were released earlier can be mentioned. But any description of evidence only should come from trial reports. It's confusing and possibly inaccurate. Evidently people just cobbled new material onto old material without bothering to verify what was or was not relevant. I'm not sure what tag to put on those two paragraphs until I or others resolve it. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it would be available pre-trial for it to be presented or included in the trial. The dates reflect the time of discovery, date published, or dates they were released. I agree it could confuse the reader into thinking those were the dates they were presented to the jury when clearly it wasn't such. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did we really need another section for this? Anyway, I'm removing the subheadings. They can always be restored later. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Appeals and civil cases, new info...
It's started, the defense attorneys have submitted why there should be an appeal to the courts. There is also a court date set up for the Gonzalas civil suit. The Anthony's put in a request for evidence from the case to go to them so that they can destroy what they don't want to keep. There are some things starting to get moving. You can see the new items on the bottom left of either of these difs for this reference. HTH, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good reference! Put reference in that shows the actual appeal document in the verdict sentence section.  I do not think it needs say anything further at this point.  Premature. Mugginsx (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a bold editor but I do like looking for new references ocassionally. When I find something I usually put it on the talk page for those who are better at writing than I am.  I haven't found anything yet about the diary or even a bullet list of the evidence used yet.  The closest I came was the request from the Anthony grandparents for all the evidence to go to them. It said a judge had to rule on whether they could have it.  I think it's interesting that they want everything themselves so that others can't have it, but I guess it's more of a side story and not something for this article.  I guess we'll have to see what happens from here.  The civil suit also has made some request for some of the evidence from the trial so I don't think anyones going to be getting everything that quickly, only copies maybe if the judge allows it.  I don't know if that is ok for the civil section either.  I'm giving it up for today I think, later, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The family has been reported to be very disfunctional. I personally would look at the mother in the jail house tapes.  Enabling your children is never the answer and seems to make them feel a certain "entitlement" in life that they do not actually possess.  The father may have put his head in the sand, as he seems the type, but the mother seemed to know something was not right with her daughter but just kept enabling her until it no longer mattered. Mugginsx (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are probably a much better editor than you think. Just need more confidence.  By the way, I could not find anything valuable on the diary either and I also looked hard.  I also save good references for possible later use.  It is a good idea I think. Mugginsx (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, could we desist with personal speculation not directly related to sourced info in the article? Dozens of editors have their opinions on the dozens of issues involved in this case, but it's not appropriate for this talk page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not reprimand me or any other editors on this article again Carol. This is my final warning. Mugginsx (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Polite warnings about getting off track are allowed. So am I in trouble with you for mentioning WP:SOAPBOX in the section below, again discussing creating a Casey BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you warning and for what? The two of us were talking about sources I posted.  So I don't understand why you would be warning anyone or am I missing something?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear, I was referring to this by Mugginsx: ''I personally would look at the mother in the jail house tapes. Enabling your children is never the answer and seems to make them feel a certain "entitlement" in life that they do not actually possess. The father may have put his head in the sand, as he seems the type, but the mother seemed to know something was not right with her daughter but just kept enabling her until it no longer mattered.'' Personal speculation like this unless related very strictly to an edit is soapboxing and once one person starts, it encourages others. The discussion below of a Casey Anthony article shows that going wild. I actually only speculated on when she would finally make a statement and that it might be quite a while if her attorney's story is true and she was a sexually abused young girl who lied all her life to cover up the truth/shame of it. However, I'm not saying "I personally think she was...whatever." That's the difference and why WP:Soapbox matters. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Crohnie: A distinction without a difference, methinks. Mugginsx (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources confuse prosecution closing arguments and rebuttal
The Prosecution presented closing arguments June 30-July 1, the Defense its closing July 1 to 3, with a Prosecution rebuttal on July 4th.Ref1Ref2. The July 3rd dated refs used (as opposed to better ones from the initial closing that can be found) do not differentiate between the prosecution closing arguments and its rebuttal after the defense closing arguments. This is something else which needs correcting and I'll do as get to that section. Just because sources confuse the issues, doesn't mean the article has toe. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the one who added that information and those sources (and I tweaked the line). If it's on you and not us, then fix it without wasting space on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk)
 * In fact, such minor issues should not be brought to the talk page. How does this require the thoughts of others? Flyer22 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Took that nonsense out. What reader wants to hear every date in the closing arguments and the date of prosecutors closing arguments and the date of defense's closing arguments and the date of the rebuttal case, etc.  Every editor and reader will laugh at us with that kind of minutia in the article. Mugginsx (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias are records for the ages. So it helps to be clear in what order arguments are made. Presenting the Defense first when actually it was the prosecution that came first, and not mentioning that the prosecution then got another rebuttal (and still lost the case) is just plain sloppy. As is the revert done to it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I agree with the revert. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Entire documentaries are being made about Casey Anthony...
Yet we can't have an article about her. Ridiculous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I don't think we'll have enough consensus until the day she comes out of hiding. A day after that, she'll have an article.  That's my prediction. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bingo. Of course, if Baez story about sexual abuse and living a lie is true, just like a couple high profile kidnapped and sexually abused girls who've spoken out about their stories recently, it may take her a couple years to sort through the trauma of the first 20 odd years of her life and tell the world her story. Plus if she confesses to conspiracy to dispose of a dead body, she may be prosecuted again (with or without any co-conspirators). What's the statute of limitation on that crime in Florida? Anyway, don't hold your breath for the whole story to come out soon.CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The woman is a compulsive liar. That much has been proven. Who would believe "her story" without questioning the truthfulness of it? Maybe Casey-fans, but not anyone with common sense. And she already confessed "to conspiracy to dispose of a dead body" by having Baez use that "George made the accident look like murder" defense. She cannot be tried for this case again: Double jeopardy. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A few quotes from the links:
 * "Hailed as 'the trial of a decade,'"
 * "'48 Hours' takes you inside one of the most dramatic murder trials in recent memory."
 * "Primetime Nightline goes inside the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial."

These quotes demonstrate that these documentaries are framed around the event she is notable for. These quotes also help to demonstrate that the event is the "Casey Anthony trial", a trial that is "the trial of the decade" and "one of the most dramatic murder trials in recent memory".  Chickenmonkey  04:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Quest for Knowledge and others interested in Casey Anthony Article: You might read Charles Matthews at latest and previous issue of  WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 96, Issue 17.  Casey Anthony has been reported not just in US but England and other countries.  I think it is a worth article if we could get Dr. Matthews on our side.  His corrected user page link is in the section with my request for vote on civil case being in the article. Mugginsx (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Chickenmonkey: I doubt there will be very many sources about Anders Behring Breivik that don't mention the 2011 Norway attacks yet we have two articles about it. Face it, we're going against policy and widespread community practice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing anyone of malice, but I wonder how much of the resistance to Casey Anthony having her own article is due to people's distaste for the excessive coverage of the case. Because as Quest points out, there is absolutely nothing different between Breivik's notability outside of a single event and Anthony's. Either way, time will tell whether we create the article or not. Angryapathy (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe we are also premature in our creation of an article on Anders Behring Breivik, but this is not the place for that discussion. My opinion that we should not have an article on Casey Anthony is based entirely on policy, as I have repeatedly explained and will not repeat my position here, not on any sort of distaste for anything.  Chickenmonkey  19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all very nice, but none of that has anything to do with our policy on notability. Notability means significant coverage by sources independent of the subject.  This has been provided many times over.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I might jump in, I must agree with you Chickenmonkey and A Quest for Knowledge. I think the rationale for not having a seperate article is flawed in lieu of the other articles.  User Charles Matthews, one of Wikipedias most notable persons also thinks that in general terms the nobility standards are enforced too strictly and too selectively. It is the basic reason, he states, for the enormous drop in new Wikipedia articles.  I think in due time there will be another vote and there will, indeed, be another article just for Casey Anthony.  Breivik is partially correct in that there will be BLP worries, but it they can overcome them elsewhere in similar articles, they can be done here.  Her verdict means absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has an article.  There will be a notable after-trial life for her to be certain, and for quite some time.  It is already begun with various deals, etc. Mugginsx (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that she was found not guilty means that Wikipedia views her as a victim. When dealing with victims, we must be careful that we are not involved in prolonging the victimization; that would include placing undue attention on her life, with an article on it.  Chickenmonkey  19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How would be reporting about Casey Anthony's possible book, tv or movie deals be victimizing her? Come on.  Also, where specifically does it say that Wikipedia views her as a victim.  I know about the policy but where does it specifically relate to Casey Anthony?  You do not even know what kiind of an article would be written.  What are you afraid of? Mugginsx (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Documenting the life of someone places attention on them. Casey Anthony is a victim because of the death of her daughter. It is not a case of me, or anyone else, being afraid of anything. It's a case of following policy. The fact that "you do not even know what kind of an article would be written" is just another case against her notability. If we do not know what we are going to write about, how can she be worthy of an article?  Chickenmonkey  19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not say we should immediately do another article. Believe me, she will be notable for a long time if half of the deals are for real.  And look at OJ - FOUR articles on him.  I realize he was an athlete but FOUR articles?  A bit hypocritical for all of those "strict interpretors of WP Victim, Notability or any other standards.  If she fades into the sunset, that is another matter.  We will just have to wait and see but I think the article is inevitable. Mugginsx (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Chickenmonkey: No, the fact that she was found not guilty means that she was found not guilty. Being aquitted doesn't turn you into a victim.  That's insane, and again, has absolutely no basis in policy.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Her daughter's death was ruled a homicide, correct? She was found not guilty of committing that homicide. Therefore, she is the victim of a crime: the homicide of her daughter. The only reason she has remained in the public eye, for three years, is due the fact that she was the victim of that crime. Now, if she chooses to remain a public figure, we can discuss whether she should have an article. Until then, she does not warrant an article. Had she been found guilty, that would obviously alter her status as a "victim". <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 19:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So you're saying this article should be deleted? Doesn't that have to go through a nomination process? I'm trying to follow all these different discussions... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Chickenmonkey: According to the prosecution, Casey Anthony killed her daughter.  According to the defense, her daughter drowned in swimming accident.  In none of these scenerios, is Casey a victim.  If you're alleging that someone else killed Caylee, that's pure WP:OR.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The only victim there is the Florida taxpayers. Victim, indeed.  Caylee is a victim.Mugginsx (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not WP:OR. As was pointed out to me, earlier, the death was ruled a homicide. The fact that Casey Anthony was found not guilty means, according to the jury, she did not do it. That does not change the fact that the death was ruled a homicide. Beyond that, however, an accidental death of a person's child still renders them a victim, in the spirit of WP:VICTIM. This discussion has already been had, though, so I believe we should end it here. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Chickenmonkey: Nobody (besides yourself as far as I know) has proposed an alternate theory of what happened.  Wikipedia is not the place for original research or novel interpretations of what happened.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not proposing an alternate theory. The fact that the death was ruled a homicide is not original research. The fact that Casey Anthony was found not guilty of that homicide is not original research. I'm not clear on what you're attempting to say. If there is more to say, it would be better suited to be said at the RFC on this matter. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 02:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:SYN. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No it is not. First, I am not synthesizing anything, and I am not advancing a new position. Second, I am not proposing the addition of anything to the article. I feel that we are not going to agree, on this. To that end, perhaps it would be best for this particular conversation to end, in favor of potentially more fruitful conversations occurring at the RFC. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 04:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read the WP:Victim and to me, that doesnt define what a victim is. That only says what applies when someone already is a victim. Someone lost their life, I dont see how someone still alive is a victim. As a mother, she suffered a loss of her child, but its a far stretch to say she was a victim, especially when she was charged with being involved in that very same child's death. The alleged crime was committed against the child, not the mother. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not mean the Wiki definition or any other definition of a victim. Casey Anthony is a convicted felon for theft of her "friend", times over. She also lied four times to a law enforcement officer who was trying to find (the victims) child.  This victim also delayed reporting her daughter's missing for 31 days and only did that because he mother made the initial call.  Then this victim goes out dancing with her boyfriend and other friends at hot teeshirt contests, etc., while her daughter is missing.  This is not supposition, they are ADMITTED facts.  Can you actually believe there is any definition at Wiki or anywhere under the sun that includes that?  Like I said before, the victims are Caylee and the Florida Taxpayers who are mostly senior citizens and are pushing around shopping carts at Publix to make ends meet with their social security.  They are going to pay her legal fees while she keeps the 60,000 given her and makes perhaps millions on media deals.  If anyone believes her to be a victim than I have some swamp property in Florida to sell them to build houses on - pardon the comparison but I lived in Florida many, many years. Mugginsx (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I feel that the parent of a murdered child is clearly a "victim", in the spirit of our policies. This, along with WP:BLP1E, informs my position on this matter. With that said, I have noted my opposition at the reopened RFC, and I will let an admin determine the outcome. Everyone needs try to remain calm and neutral. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you do that I will make a point to inform that administrator that no new action has been taken to start an article and you are being disruptive by intentionally wasting that administrator's time with a bluff and should be BLOCKED. Mugginsx (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I do what? The RFC was reopened, by the closing editor. Please be mindful of not making empty threats. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We will see if they are empty or not. You are a big bully.  You have pretended to engage in open-minded discussion as to the feasibility of opening an article on Casey Anthony and then, without any notice or statements that anyone were going to open such an article at this time, you run to an Administration like a schoolyard bully.  The Talk page is the proof of your actions. And if I have to get a different Administrator, I promise you you will not like him.  Mugginsx (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Mugginsx (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Muggins, you seem to be confused about what has happened. I did not run to anyone. The RFC at Talk:Casey Anthony was recently closed, with a consensus against creating the article. The editor who closed it later reopened it. That is all that has happened. Does that clarify things? I apologize if you felt anything untoward had occurred. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 20:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we move this discussion to Talk:Casey_Anthony ? it just invites speculation and soapbox. (Mea culpa for my own.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not touch this discussion until an Administrator has reviewed it.Mugginsx (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology and offer my own. There is not reason for this subject to get heated.  It is way too premature for the opening of an article on Casey Anthony yet and I think most of us have said that in one way or another.  Mugginsx (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Chronological timeline/Source for every day of the trial
I finally found one to help end the confusion on evidence (and related issues) described above and which I found rampant tonight, in checking carefully references in the article. CFNEWS13 actually has a calendar linked to an article about every day of the trial so one can go through each story and see what happened on that day. CFNEWS13 already is used frequently as a reference. This is a good way for those unsure of chronology, details, to get a quick overview. And having correct dates, terminologies, facts to investigate further will allow the finding of other supporting references. Having this information easily researchable will help end the overly general debates about what is notable and what is missing. And now we have a good timeline to study to add material to the very anemic description of the defense case, thereby dealing with WP:BLP concerns. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Carol, I edited one of your sentences. To explain, the Prosecution "presents" the evidence.  The Defense put on witnesses to "refute" that evidence.  Actually, it need put no witnesses on the stand if it thinks the Prosecution has not made any points.  I know it is confusing, but that is the way it is correctly phrased. OK?  I Like the change you made to the first sentence in the Verdict Sentence Section.  It is more accurate. Mugginsx (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "And now we have a good timeline to study to add material to the very anemic description of the defense case, thereby dealing with WP:BLP concerns."


 * Sigh again. Exactly what I mean about Carolmooredc rehashing the same things over and over again. Carolmooredc continues to go on and on about how the defense isn't presented equally, despite the fact that they are. Despite outside editors saying that they are. Despite the fact that editors who haven't even been involved with this article much say that they are. Such as Chronie, in the stating, "It looks pretty balanced to me. Remember we don't have to have the same many words for the prosecution and the defense, that's not what balance means. We just need to make sure that each side gets told. The prosecution gave a lot more evidence than the defense so what they said is going to be more in the article, but it still looks balanced." Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is what you are saying Carol, you are incorrect. There is a consensus that disagrees with you.  Wiki regulations require that you cease the particular edits after consensus is reached. Mugginsx (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, again this gets back to what we were saying earlier, although it has come up so much that each discussion is split up over different sections. Yes, we raised the question of what would be mentioned. I think we agreed that including every possible thing from the prosecution's side would make this article gigantic. The same would be true if everything from the defense was mentioned. At that point it would basically just be copying and pasting the entire transcript from the trial itself. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus doesn't trump policy, especially on BLP and NPOV. Hopefully some editors will find this resource helpful for correcting inaccuracies and biases in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this discussion has nothing to do with BLP and the NPOV is not applicable because as has been explained to you by three editors and me personally three times that I know of now, the Prosecution puts on the case, introduces all of the evidence, the defense cross-examines some of the witness, may offer a few or no witnesses of his own, the amount of evidence does not reflect a non NPOV.  I repeat, there is not a cross-examination of every witness, in either prosecution or defense case.  The prosecution ALWAYS HAS A BIGGER CASE.  There are no exceptions.  You cannot artifically make a section even that is by its nature and makeup  fundamentally UNeven.  You cannot make up an (artifical) word count to make sections look even, which you mentioned the first time this came up.  I think that the only non NPOV here is your own because you refuse to listen to the editors even when they take literally hours to research and reference their Talk page answers to you in a way to make you understand.  Then, you do not respect consensus which could get you permanently blocked from Wikipedia if there are too many complaints and you are working toward that on your own here and elsewhere. That is not my threat, it is Wikipedia history. For the last time, the decision was made by consensus and you have to respect it.  There is NO BLP ISSUE.  There is no NPOV ISSUE.  The facts are what they are.  I have agreed with you on some things and even praised some of your edits but you want it all and NOBODY has their way all the time. I have many times gotten reverted, mostly on articles that I am not familiar with, or my material is changed, as well as everyone else here but what you are doing is wasting everyone's time by repeatedly bringing up the same issues that are already decided by consensus and by changing material and references that consensus has already decided.  I repeat, the entire Wikipedia concept if that of working together for CONSENSUS.  That is the fundamental and primary principle of Wikipedia.  Mugginsx (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so talking about what I mentioned earlier, I put together a short list of evidence that I think is important enough to mention in the article. This list is not complete but is stuff I'm naming just off the top of my head. This stuff includes evidence for both sides, prosecution and defense. I could add all this into the article right now, but I still need to find sources for these:


 * the winnie the pooh blanket
 * the skeletal remains on suburban drive
 * the single hair strand found in the trunk, its maternal ancestry (ie caylee, casey, cindy, cindy's mother, etc), and its 3-ring "death" banding
 * Henkel duct tape
 * the supposed decompositional fluid staining of the trunk liner (no blood or DNA found)
 * the DNA, if any, found and related to the above items
 * the air samples and its chemical composition (sort of already mentioned but not clearly), and associated 'smell of death'
 * the videos of shopping
 * the photos of her partying
 * the photo of the tattoo
 * the garbage in the trunk
 * the spare tire cover
 * coffin fly found in trunk
 * the incident with the shovel
 * the gas cans
 * the photo of the car "backed-in" to the stall sitting right next to the dumpster at the amscot parking lot
 * the report of the cell tower pings, showing casey leaving the house on june 16 around 1:30pm and then back around 2:15 or 2:30 (the prosecution's supposed time of death)
 * the Melich report/interview of her ex-boyfriend stating she would give Caylee Chloroform to put her to sleep (part of exclude/not presented in open court)
 * again, that list isn't complete. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * edit 1: I found part of it! it was Ricardo Morales interview. I'm sifting through it now. the website is:
 * http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/012109caseydocuments/indexGallery.htm ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * edit 2: OK thats too small to read (when you click on a page). I'll have to find a larger version... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * edit 3: I found the audio interview with Morales. He says Casey only "joked" about giving Caylee "baby medicine".
 * Also, about the evidence, should it be mentioned in the order that it was presented (or not if its excluded) to be consistent with the chronological form of the article? The list above would have to be re-ordered. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On Chrono order of all evidence, now you are saying something, TLGRH!
 * [Clarified later: Though IMHO] only evidence someone tried to bring or did bring into trial and then was excluded should be mentioned; not things reported before hand but never even attempted to be brought in to trial. And excluded material should not trump important information revealed at trial that was widely reported. I'm having fun right now reading all the reporting on the trial in chrono order and finding out all sorts of things I missed in my on an off listening. Systematic research is what wikipedia should be about. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you haven't noticed, ThisLaughingGuyRightHere does not support your view on what should be excluded from the Evidence section, except for maybe things that were not brought to trial. But I'll let him answer that, because he seems to be pretty pro-diary either way. And no one said "excluded material trumps important information revealed at trial that was widely reported." But if you are in any way talking about the Bradley admission and its placement in the Evidence section because it was not revealed to the jury at trial, I will say that if you support chronological order, then you should have no objection to leaving Bradley's admission right where it is...as agreed on by other editors and previously accepted by you. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ThisLaughingGuyRightHere, some of the stuff you listed is already in the article; no need to find sources for those things. Flyer22 (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Exhibits vs Evidence
Until the objects are "entered into evidence" by the Judge during trial and given a "number" or (in smaller cases) a letter, or further cases, some combination of both, they are Exhibits, not "legally termed evidence". If, at a latter time the judge determines the "evidence" unworthy then they are evidence that was rejected or excluded. There are many and diverse reasons why a Judge would reject or exclude evidence after it was entered into the record of the trial. Too many to put here. They reasons are already explained in the various sections of the article anyway.

It is confusing, and except in the place I edited, it probably does not matter to the general public in most places in this article as newspaper and even sometimes lawyers themselves call exhibits evidence though not during trial. Mugginsx (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Reporters often turn to wikipedia, so do law students, etc. Being precise helps. Deleting attempts at precision, instead of making them more precise, especially when it helps befog the POV of the article, hinders. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh my God. If you could only hear yourself through someone else's ears.  I am going to ignore you from now on for my own sanity but before I do I must tell you that law students and reporters do not turn to Wikipedia often if ever.  I thought to help you throughout, but now I think I will let you self-destruct on your own.  Goodbye Carol. Mugginsx (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Carol, but with your last comment (and others) here I have to ask for a source to show that reporters and law students refer to Wikipedia. To me that sounds way out there so please supply a source to back up your comments and I'll be the first to help you with what you want to do. Being precise is good, bloating though is not, sorry. Thank you, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Journalists use Wikipedia as breaking news source;
 * Category:Wikipedian law students
 * Plus more generally: Pew Report The percentage of all American adults who use Wikipedia...53% of adult internet users...The collaborative encyclopedia is most popular among internet users with at least a college degree, 69% of whom use the site. ..Wikipedia is generally more popular among those with annual household incomes of at least $50,000, as well as with young adults: 62% of internet users under the age of 30 using the service, compared with only 33% of internet users age 65 and older. In the scope of general online activities, using Wikipedia is more popular than sending instant messages (done by 47% of internet users) or rating a product, service, or person (32%), but is less popular than using social network sites (61%) or watching videos on sites like YouTube (66%).
 * Sufficiente? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with anything, except for your preference that certain things should be worded a certain way? I don't mind the dates being mentioned, for example, but I don't see how us including them should be based on the number of reporters and law students who refer to Wikipedia. I'm surprised Crohnie did not know how widely Wikipedia is cited (meaning even by reporters and lawyers), though. I, however, point out that it is also highly discouraged by teachers of every field and level. Teachers consider it unreliable and advise their students not to use it. A simple Google search will show this. Flyer22 (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was politely answering another editor's question about a point I made about who reads Wikipedia and how high our standards in editing should be. Obviously, a lot of intelligent, discerning people read Wikipedia. I myself don't recommend people take the text of articles too seriously unless they themselves check the references. But that does not counter fact that many educated people read it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem and agreed. I asked about the relevance, however, because you were basically saying we should edit this article in accordance with the fact that reporters and law students refer to and/or cite it. This is why Crohnie said she would support what you wanted to do with the wording you and Mugginsx are debating over...if you could provide a reliable source showing that reporters and lawyer students refer to and/or cite Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's forget that comment in passing (which I did ref above as a courtesy and don't need to further reference) which only was a mention of one of many reasons to try to write a well organized article ala Manual_of_Style_(layout). If you want to discuss something relevant, discuss that. Except I don't have a specific proposal at this moment, so it would just be generalized theorizing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am late responding here because I spent all of yesterday listening to trial tapes. Law students would never use Wikipedia to look up legal terminology.  Nor would they use it to understand what happened at a particular case.  They have their own special sets of books and documents they consult for both.  Some words that have a legal meaning have a broader meaning to the general public.  Nancy Grace for example, is a lawyer, but would not use strictly legal terms because the general public would be put to sleep by the narrative.  She uses the more common terminology which everyone understands.  Newspapers as well.  There was only one place in the article that I edited because in that particular sentence I thought the strict terminology was required.   There is no right or wrong in using either term except in the courtroom and perhaps in that one sentence. Mugginsx (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Which diary was excluded?
In the "Evidence" section, the paragraph about the diary states "Lead attorney Jose Baez called the evidence "completely speculative"[56] and filed a motion to exclude it from evidence, which the judge denied.[60] Neither of those sources states the diary was excluded. The first source says "Perry told Baez to file a motion to exclude", but nothing about whether he did or not. The second says  "Perry's orders denied defense motions to ...prohibit the use of MySpace references attributed to Casey Anthony under the so-called "Diary of Days." What exactly does MySpace references attributed to Casey Anthony under the so-called "Diary of Days refer to? "Myspace references" are not physical diaries, are they? Where are the sources that support what the sentence in question that appears in the article states? Shirt  waist &#9742;  11:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Jose Baez line should be fixed, of course. And there were not two diaries, so I'm not understanding your confusion on that. Flyer22 (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also... If "Perry's orders denied defense motions" regarding the diary, isn't it pretty clear that Baez filed a motion to exclude it from evidence and the judge denied that? Flyer22 (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing... "Perry told Baez to file a motion to exclude"... The judge can run his courtroom how he pleases. If he told (not asked) Baez to do that, then... Flyer22 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My confusion stems from the sentence stating Baez "filed a motion to exclude it from evidence, which the judge denied", "it" presumably referring to the diary, but the sources don't say any such thing. If you read those two sources carefully, the confusion should be clear to you.
 * Again - where in this source or this source does it say Perry dealt with the diary at all, except to tell Baez to file a motion to exclude? Where is the source that establishes that Baez did in fact file that motion, and that Perry denied that motion? Or is that your speculation? Shirt  waist &#9742;  12:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not confusing to me, per what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question about the sources not supporting the entry. Do you have one? Shirt  waist &#9742;  12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that I have answered them in part (such as what the judge says goes). I will leave the rest of this section for others to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a blog reference that shows that motions and a hearing was set to exclude, among other things, the diary. http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/01/03/caylee-anthony-case-todays-hearing-010211/.  It seems there was a hearing. Here is another reference showing the notice for hearing document (See Item 14)  The hearing must have gone forward or a special legal document would have to had been presented to show why the hearing did not go forward.  Will continue to look damn, it is hard to find good references on that diary.  Mugginsx (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this page http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?291265-Timeline-of-Events-Caylee-Casey-Anthony-No-Discussion that includes the "Diary of Days" as the title of a MySpace entry allegedly written by Casey Anthony. I'm not sure the page is a reliable source for use in the article, but it's good enough to conclude that the Orlando Sentinel article reference 60 is not talking about the diary with the June 21 entry and therefore provides no support for the claim that the judge denied an exclusion order for the June 21 diary. Note that our policy (BLP) requires that unsourced, contentious material about living persons be removed immediately. --agr (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think it went forward to trial. Will have to listen to the darn trial tapes to see if it was discussed in one of those hearings televised but with the jury absent and was excluded at that time. Mugginsx (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I stand corrected. And any reference to the MySpace entry should be removed. Mugginsx has provided a source above showing that one motion was to exclude the June 21 diary, though I'm not sure how reliable it is. Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Trouble is that none of these references on the diary are the best we could ask for. The only answer is the watch the trial tapes and see if there was a hearing during trial where jury was absent.  Some were shown, some were not. Mugginsx (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the source from Mugginsx about the june 21 diary. The thehinkymeter.com link only mentions the MySpace diary. Maybe it's the Item 14 he refers to, but what document is that in? Was a link omitted?--agr (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC).


 * I think you are right - that item was about the Myspace diary. Will continue to look. Mugginsx (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you both think it worth the time and effort, I will listen to the trial tapes. Mugginsx (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, forget that earlier pre-trial hearing. It was definitely about the MySpace diary entries.  No mention about the diary itself at that earlier hearing according to this source which is close in time to aforesaid hearing. http://www.cayleedaily.com/2011/02/casey-judge-decides-what-evidence-is-allowed-at-trial/


 * I believe we can go ahead and remove the diary information for now. We can always add it back later, when better sources comment on how it (the June 21st entry) was used at trial. We already know that the prosecution wanted to include it, which can be backed up by various reliable sources. It was certainly reported on enough in the media. And we also know that the FBI investigated it, and disputed the defense's claims about this type of diary having been on the market since 2003. More will be stated about the diary eventually; scholars will not be able to resist that. So we can remove mention of it for now. Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, yes. That one piece of evidence, if statements were proven to be close to the time of death could have been the magic bullet for the prosecution. Mugginsx (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why I feel that including the diary information is relevant. It's not about the date it was written not having been proven; it's about prosecutors having believed this diary entry counts as evidence, and the dates having been thoroughly investigated because of that. But I have stated just about all I have to state on this subject, and would rather move on now. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am listening to the court tapes now and being smart this time and indexing them on a word document. Found another Bradley tape - cross by Baez, - still holds true to the article so far. Absolutely no mention of the flaw in the software by Bradley by Prosecution direct - Baez cross - Prosec redirect. I will save it for you if you want it at some time, but am moving along to find diary.  Think it went to trial but was excluded by judge at some point - at what point I do not yet know. Mugginsx (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Listened to entire 1/30 pre-trial hearing - nothing there. Not the PDF document hearing - talks about mundane matters of court also Equiseach complaint on matter having to do with Baez wanting all information on the searches.   Flyer or ArnoldRheinhold - if you want a word document summary INCLUDING ALL TESTIMONY IN ACTUAL TRIAL THAT I HAVE HEARD SO FAR.  I prepared on all five tapes which include uninterrupted hearing,  website locations of ALL the tapes,and all motions filed and all relevant discussion I will be happy to e-mail it to you.  For what it is worth the 5-part JANUARY PRE-TRIAL HEARING does not mention anything that came up in trial - just mundane court business for pre-trial but, as I say, if you want it for any reason, even for purposes of elimination, I will be happy to share what I listened to (which was pretty boring) but you never know, it might come up later is some other civil trial or elsewhere. OK? Mugginsx (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Be advised, I have already been warned by Carol that the trial itself cannot be used as a source. I have already brought up that issue and its why I havent added anything to the article. I could add a lot of info but it would be from my memory of the trial, whereas I would actually need to find WP:RS in order to actually add something. I am, however, incredibly impressed at your effort (and Flyer's) in researching and verifying information about the trial. I find your comments here to be very educational and enlightening. Keep up the good work! ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about the June 21 diary entry per BLP policy, pending proper sourcing of the material in it.--agr (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that the trial itself, can not only be used as a reference, but is the best reference if information in the article that you are editing is completely covered by the particular part of the coverage you are referencing. Also, you must make sure that, just like a book, the information is not copyrighted. Than you can pararaphrase as you would using a book reference.  Just be careful that what you are paraphrasing is equally true, again just like in a book.  That you for the compliment.  I try very hard and I say the same about you. Mugginsx (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm delighted to see that ShirtWaist and AGR managed to achieve something I've been trying to do for the last few weeks, using the same arguments. Good on ya!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the same arguments that got it removed. Anyone reading this discussion can see what did. But nice to see you trying to take partial credit and get the last word, as usual. Let's see if you can get your way with all the other things you want done with this article. Somehow, I don't see that happening. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by Flyer's statements and I feel its relevant and should be considered evidence, but I see this will not relent. As you say, it can always be added later. I've found legal documents concerning the day the status hearing occurred in which the diary was referenced by Drane Burdick, and I will continue to search for more, but I will not labor the issue for the time being. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Flyer - Yes, anyone can see that I actually read the sources to see if they supported what was put into the article, and they did not, while getting a lot of static from you. I suggest that whoever put that diary information there should be more careful in the future, so as to prevent a lot of unnecessary conflict and drama on such a highly contentious talk page. I would also caution some editors on this page to seriously dial down the immaturity, and uncivil and uncollegial behavior. WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and WP:AGF are policies that are in dire need of being followed more closely around here. I also hope that this kind of misrepresentation of sources is an isolated event, but just to be sure we should go through the entire article and weed out anything like this that not only violates WP:BLP, but is simply not using sources properly. Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't put that information into the article. And it's clear that nobody read the sources, which is just one reason you "got a lot of static" from me. And, no, it's not immature to call out problematic editors and/or editing. As long as CarolMooreDC continues to rehash settled issues, pretty much ignoring and/or going against consensus, she will continue to get attitude from me. I do not need to be reminded of WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, or WP:AGF. And WP:AGF is a guideline, by the way. I only assume good faith when I have reason to. And for the last time, including the diary information was not a BLP violation. It didn't become one until you discovered what you did about the sources. Good for you. Now we can move on. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it was a BLP violation when it was added to the article with those sources, which was long before I even showed up here. BLP violations are BLP violations whether I find them or not. The fact that you don't recognize that important fact is disturbing, as is your pointing out that WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy - as if it wasn't as vital to WP as the others. Oh well, I tried. Shirt  waist &#9742;  03:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, understand what I'm saying. Adding information about the diary is not a BLP violation. You were making the BLP claim before you checked the sources. The fact that you cannot distinguish what I am saying and continue to put words into my mouth, or rather into my hands, is disturbing...but not at all unusual for Wikipedia editors. It's how a lot of you work. Yes, WP:AGF is a guideline that is not as vital as Wikipedia's policies. If it were, it'd be a policy. You can go assuming good faith in everyone who edits Wikipedia, even vandals and obvious agenda-driven jerks, but I will not. WP:AGF does not mean we cannot point out problematic editors; we point them out all the time. And to be quite clear, I don't care what you "tried" to do concerning me. The fact that you continue to make me out to be a problematic editor all the while making Carolmooredc out as some great, drama-free editor who is being beaten up by the big, mean bullies is quite laughable indeed. If reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard, let's see how many editors on Wikipedia would say, "Look at Flyer's contributions and the number of times she has famously edit-warred and been blocked in comparison to Carolmooredc's contributions and the number of times she has famously edit-warred and been blocked. It appears we have our problem, and it's not Flyer." But you go right ahead, support your prodigy. I can always say, "Oh well. I tried to warn him about that one." Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comments are not addressed to me, so I guess I can't respond even though much could be said. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't. Thought is all that's required. As for what Carol told you, WP:BLPPRIMARY states - "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. When an article summarizes secondary source material which in turn refers to its primary source, a link to that primary source may be added as a reference." I take that to mean that transcripts can only be used as refs when a secondary RS that discusses it is provided first. Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Many references have been changed by other editors. Flyers, mine, many editors. Many by CarolMooredc.  Some of her edits  also did not meet the stringent standards of a BLP issue. Please review talk section Krystal Holloway.  Also some websites show something one day and not another.  When we find that out it is changed.  I think we all have concluded that we might need a second source as well because of the ambiguities in the guidelines but the tapes will give us clarity as to the facts and dates and a clue as to where to find other sources.  I think Flyer has been the most civil of all editors here.  We have all lost it here at one time or another.  Now so have you, I think it would be good for you to take your own advice.  Also, an administrator is monitoring this page and has given appropriate suggestions in a very kind and thoughtful manner. Mugginsx (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like this diff of removal of diary makes one of several points I've made over the weeks, one I've made 2 or 3 times: we don't have a reliable source saying whether or not it was used at trial. (If only the trial transcript mentioned it being used at trial, I personally would not have a problem with mentioning it from that perspective, though the defense reply would have to be included; and even then it might not be more critical to mention than other evidence.) Re: Krystal Holloway, I already admitted I made an error in my initial edit by leaving out some information that did not appear in the two sources I used. I have not yet presented an alternate version. Why opinions, factoids, admittance of errors, etc. by this one female, must lead to constant drama by other editors, I can only speculate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right...the primary RS that says Baez wanted exclusion, and a secondary (which should be the primary) court record would.....ha haa ok. Now I see what Flyer means by rehashing. I'm not going to play that game. I've already made comments on this. WP:Rehash. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, ThisLaughingGuyRightHere. Exactly. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc should also be clear that with the wording "by this one female," she means herself, as basically stated in her edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

picture of caylee
I cannot tell if consensus was reached on an image of caylee in this article. I would like to see one since it is about her death, but if consensus was reached I will not bring it up again. Perhaps there could not be found an uncopyrighted pic. Will continue to look. Does anyone know? Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mugginsx, given all these past discussions about it: ....



Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 5

Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 6




 * ...it doesn't seem like we will have a Caylee image in this article any time soon. Flyer22 (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats fine. Thanks Flyer.  Mugginsx (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Pardon my ignorance, but aren't pictures presented in the trial considered Public Domain? How about grabbing one of those photos and cropping out Casey so we can use a shot of Caylee? I would be happy to do it if it is permissible by WP standards. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not speaking for Flyer, but I believe is that a consensus was reached at some point against using photos for Caylee. I am looking at the material he referenced right now. Mugginsx (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is right here in his first reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_8#File:Caylee_anthony.jpg Mugginsx (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I did raise this question during the deletion discussion and it was accurately refuted as inconsistent with copyright law. While Florida can, and does, release their own works, they can not re-designate the copyrights of works created by another. To use a non-free image it must depict something that adds to the understanding of some specific prose within the article that itself is verifiable. For example if a source can be shown that specifically mentions the stamp on Caylee's hand, the picture would probably qualify under fair use. This is WP:OR at this point, but I believe there is something significant about the hand stamp, but can not as yet find independent confirmation. My76Strat (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is extremely interesting. Mugginsx (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know very little about copyright law - and do not remember much of what I learned in college except for some very basic information. Mugginsx (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that I'm female, Mugginsx, LOL. I figured you'd checked my user page and found out that way, since you seem like the curious type. But never the matter, plenty of people don't check my user page and rather assume that I'm male. Most Wikipedians are men, after all; it's quite the gender gap here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I do not indicate what sex I am on my page, many editors have assumed I was male too. Have to get more females on Wikipedia!!! Mugginsx (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OJ...not Casey
In the article it says: "According to recent statistics reported by The Christian Post, the trial became the most publicized case in U.S. history. They report records showing 91 percent of the television viewing audience watched it and 142 million people listened on radio and watched television as the verdict was delivered. "The Simpson case was the longest trial ever held in California, costing more than $20 million to fight and defend, running up 50,000 pages of trial transcript in the process. Reports say the Casey Anthony trial [far exceeded] these numbers," stated R. Leigh Coleman of The Christian Post."

Okay, the first part makes it sound like the 91% viewing audience and 142 million people was for the Casey trial, when it was for the OJ trial.

The last part "Reports say the Casey Anthony trial [far exceeded] these numbers," stated R. Leigh Coleman of The Christian Post." is not sourced. If you go to the article, it says: "Reports say the Casey Anthony trial will far exceed these numbers." Do we have an actual source that says that the trial definitely exceeded the OJ numbers? Laladoodle92 (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Both parts. The first part is worded oddly in The Christian Post article. First, it says "The Simpson case was the longest trial ever held in California, costing more than $20 million to fight and defend, running up 50,000 pages of trial transcript in the process. Reports say the Casey Anthony trial will far exceed these numbers." But then it goes right back into talking about the O. J. case without warning, saying "There were 150 witnesses called to give evidence before a jury that was sequestered at the Hotel Intercontinental in downtown L.A. from January until October." So that's where the confusion came from.


 * I'm not sure if there are sources confirming that the Casey Anthony trial exceeded the O. J. numbers. It's clear, though, that several analysts thought it would. Flyer22 (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. However, I have one more problem....It also says "According to recent statistics reported by The Christian Post, the trial was on the verge of becoming the most publicized case in U.S. history, replacing the O. J. Simpson case". I don't think that should be included unless we have actual proof that it was the most publicized case in US history. Google News Archive brings up 3160 articles for Caylee Anthony, compared to 34,600 articles for Nicole Brown Simpson. Even JonBenet Ramsey brings up 15,000 articles. Until we get actual statistics that show that the Anthony case had more articles written about it, more TV shows talking about it, more TV specials made about it, more books written about it, than any other case in US history, it's not accurate to say it's the most publicized case. Remember "case" includes everything---from solved to unsolved, trial to no trial. Even changing "case" to "trial" wouldn't be accurate until we have proof that it was more publicized than OJ. And considering that OJ's trial lasted months, and Casey's trial was only 4 weeks, I find it hard to believe that the Anthony trial got more publicity.Laladoodle92 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Laladoodle92, as you know, The Christian Post source doesn't say "it was the most publicized." It says, "This trial is taking the place as the most publicized case in U.S. history, according to recent statistics." Meaning it was "on the verge of" that. But I'll go ahead and remove that line, since it's not backed up by any specific statistics or sources saying whether or not it achieved this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it again. Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the source claimed that the Anthony case was the most publicized case in US history, but if someone read this article months or years from now, and sees that it said that the Anthony case was "on the verge" of becoming the most publicized case, they would probably assume that the Anthony case eventually did receive that "title". It also made it sound like the Anthony case was #2 in terms of publicity, which was not accurately sourced. Thanks for removing it. Laladoodle92 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that you weren't implying that, Laladoodle92. And I hear what you're saying (though I doubt that line would have remained there for years, LOL), so no problem. And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A new reference to look at
I need to catch up on this talk page, boy were you all busy typing when I left. ;) I just did a search of Amazon and found this.  Books have already been written about some of this.  I don't have time to research all of it yet but I thought I would share this since it seems there is a renewal to get another article for just Casey Anthony.  Thoughts about this now that there are books for sale?  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, its been a somewhat heated debate. I don't have a problem with a separate article about her. That would free up the rest of us to work on the trial article without a lot of the hindrances that seem to keep showing up. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of those books are 2 years old! What was the deal on starting the CA article?  Is it protected?  Is there a list of people who will revert me if I start it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As there is currently an RFC on whether the article should be created, it would be bad form to jump to creating the article, before the RFC has been closed. Looking at those books, they all appear to be written in the context of covering Casey Anthony in relation to this one event. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So you would revert? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I would not revert, but not because I agree with its creation. I think the best course of action, if you feel these books help prove Casey Anthony's notability, produce them to the RFC and see where the discussion goes. This does not mean I am saying you must do this, but it is just my opinion that it would be the genial thing to do. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 03:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly, it would be a more collaborative gesture to follow consensus, not try to outmaneuver it. WP is supposed to be a good faith collaboration, not a "do what I want and hope nobody reverts me" type affair. Shirt  waist &#9742;  04:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My view on this is a lot of editors start an article in their own space and when it's ready it gets moved into main space. That is a very acceptable way of starting a new article.  The problem I am having with all of this is being told no article can be written before anyone, even me, sees what is available for a new article.  To me that's not the way Wikipedia does things, is it?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is saying that you cannot start an article in your sandbox, and if and when Casey Anthony become notable for more than this murder trial, and consensus agrees, it will be all ready to go and you will be far ahead of any other editor in your work. Why not do that if you are not already doing it?  Sounds good to me. Mugginsx (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you all create the Casey Anthony article? There seems to be enough about her to pass WP:Notability, and a lot of editors are for it. JacobTrue (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JacobTrue: If you review this talk page I think you will see how the discussion went on this particular subject.  There were actual links to votes on whether or not to have a specific article  on Casey Anthony.  To do this she needs to meet the WWP:NOTABILITY standards, i.e.,  the way I understand it is that Casey needs to be notable for something else other than a murder trial.  That may happen in the future, and as each day goes by, there is more news, but in the voting reference I think you will find that many editors though sympathetic, do not think it will yet meet that standard and thus will be voted up or down deciding  thru WP:CONSENSUS.  I hope I have explained this correctly though I am not expert on that particular subject other editors on this page are much more informed.  If this is not totally accurate, or there are more reasons, other editors will join in to give you a more accurate answer.  This article is an idea that is still being discussed and in flux. Mugginsx (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly...and I don't follow the reasoning. If you look at biographies of people you will see lots who are not notable in themselves. For example, Einstein's grandson gets his own article, but it only says he received an award for Hydroponics or something. It doesnt say what he actually accomplished that makes him notable; the way the article reads, it makes me think he got an article just because he was related to Einstein. There are other examples I could try to find, like musicians, unheard of politicians, etc. If those who arent notable get articles, I say give Casey her article. I'm wondering if there is a Betty Broderick article as well...people who have become 'notable' just because of their trial. Oh Well...ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Update! Yes, Betty Broderick does indeed have her own article! ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure which Einstein you're referring to, but Broderick was convicted in a sensational murder trial, and was subsequently the subject of two tv movies based on her life, which accounts for her notability and subsequent article about her. How does that relate to Casey Anthony, who hasn't been convicted of anything but lying to cops, and has since disappeared? Shirt  waist &#9742;  06:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Monica Lewinsky is only notable for one event. She was not convicted of any crime nor even accussed of breaking the law, and has since disappeared.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't recall what Monica Lewinsky had done, following the event she's most notable for, so I read Monica Lewinsky and was reminded that she has done multiple things to willfully remain a public figure, following the event she's most notable for: Monica's Story, television shows, interviews, commercials, "The Real Monica, Inc.", etc. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 07:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If Lewinsky had remained in hiding, any mention of her would've been restricted to the Lewinsky scandal and Impeachment of Bill Clinton articles. If Casey Anthony does an HBO special and comes out with a line of handbags, I'll have to reassess my position on this. Shirt  waist &#9742;  07:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony needs a separate article
There needs to be a separate article for Casey Anthony. There is copious encyclopedic information out there that belongs in her own article, because it's not related to the trial. Do you think Jose Baez, Cheney Mason, and Belvin Perry would have their own articles if this trial didn't happen? No. So Why don't we have a Casey Anthony article? This is ridiculous. Macarion (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree she needs her own article.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For those dropping by, this discussion belongs at: Talk:Casey Anthony. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid you are mistaken, Carolmooredc. The article Casey Anthony is a redirect to here, Death of Caylee Anthony.  Any discussion on a Split would need to occur here, since there is no content at that redirect (it is essentially part of this article). I've added the split tag to the main article. -- Avanu (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right. The fact there still is a talk page there confuses the issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved that content here and added a redirect from there to here. -- Avanu (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid you are wrong, Avanu. This was never a discussion about a split. It's a discussion about whether or not Casey Anthony should have her own article, which means that the discussion belongs there. There is nothing in this article to split into an article titled Casey Anthony (aside from her jailhouse letters), which has been made clear in the discussion you brought here. But you decided to bring this tired discussion here without others weighing in on whether or not that should be done? Nice. I'll see if I can get consensus to revert this. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Progress on the final disposition of the diary evidence is slow
As promised I am still looking for specific mention of the final disposition of the diary. Into my second day of listening to trial and various pre-trial hearings and the only mention I had heard so far is in an evidenciary pre-trial hearing dated 3-4-11 (identified as tape 11 at 5.24 minutes) in which there are dealing with possible witness, declarng some as late editions to the list and taking some off the list and all I hear is a name of a former boyfriend named Kenneth Drudiewski (unsure of spelling - he spells it but i cannot hear every letter) who defense says can testify as to when the diary was written. Nothing else is mentioned. He does not seem to be mentioned again so far. They go right to the next name. It is very very slow going. If anyone has any other information I would welcome it here. Also checked Internet websites of news articles as well. Mugginsx (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. I'll take a listen. It is also mentioned on 2/4/11 at a status hearing (pre-trial again) of which I'm currently listening. I'm working my way backwards... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I finished 2/4/11. Perry did tell Baez to "file a motion to exclude" just as the RS states, however, under the context of the entire discussion of the diary (which I will omit recounting), Perry was offering Baez advice on what to do in the future regarding the diary if Baez had any objections to it being used in court. Perry informed Baez that the deadline for filing a motion "in limine" (whatever that means) for the diary already passed, thus leaving Baez with only two options: he (Baez) could object at the time the diary was brought up in court, or he could (as the now infamous quote goes) "file a motion to exclude". The defense did in fact file motion(s) on 2/4/11, but it was for extensions regarding deadlines of witnesses and related reports, and those were granted instead of denied. If a motion to exclude the diary as evidence ever did occur, it certainly was not on 2/4/11. On a related note that was raised, yes, the diary referred to and discussed on 2/4/11 is the written diary in question (and not the MySpace "Diary of Days" cyber diary). Baez quotes a line or two from the diary and grumbles to the judge about why the prosecution chose to wait 2 years before sending the diary to the FBI in order to have the ink tested for its age (in addition to other unspecified tests). At any rate, this resolved a few concerns, at least for me, but still leaves some questions... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just listened to 3/4/11 as you cited. I had to replay that portion a half a dozen times to decipher the intent because it was so brief. I'm sort of amazed you picked up on it. The judge says it's the state's motion to strike the supplemental witness list. Interesting... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to are getting very close. Looks like it at least went to trial but, as you say, we cannot be sure.  You hve a good ear youself.  I am kind of jealous but I do hope one of us or finds out.  Curiousity is growing.  Sooner or later we should get there.  Worse case scenerio is that it was discussed at one of those sidebars in the trial that can't be heard.  I just want to find out what "exactly" happened with the diary.  I will not be editing or listening today - going to see my children.  For Motion in Limine see here:  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Motion+in+limine.  There is also a wiki article on it here: Motion in limine.  You would certainly make either a good lawyer or good investigator.  You have a good sense of detail.  Am truly envious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Mugginsx  (talk • contribs)  04:17, July 30, 2011(UTC−7)


 * ThisLaughingGuyRightHere, I don't feel that we need that many subheadings for the Criminal trial section. If the smaller sections are going to be expanded, then sure. But, generally, we shouldn't create subsections unless they are needed. A section that is covering more than one topic and is pretty big has justification for being split, for example. But I don't feel that the Jury selection section can be expanded too much further. So I'd combine it with its following section and retitle it Jury selection and opening statements. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Flyer. I plan on adding to sections in the future. I have more things to say...err...add, but I understand and agree with what you are saying. You are a great and persuasive writer. I will combine the sections as you suggest. Rock on. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jury selection merged with opening statements?
Glad to see a more rational division of trial sections. However, I can't find where Jury selection merged with opening statements is discussed in talk but it doesn't make sense since they were in different towns on different days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It was way way up there, under the "Progress on the final disposition on diary..." subsection. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, moved my comment up here, but if things need to be merged, legal representation and jury selection would make more sense, since that's about picking the players. (And old attorneys leaving not that relevant anyway, since even Conway wasn't called at trial. See This witness list] which factoid link needs to be inserted somewhere) Maybe even add prosecutors info. Otherwise I haven't reviewed your changes but will. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, it makes sense to merge, per what I stated in the section above. I know you are all for creating extra subsection headings and the like, but that is not the way things are supposed to be done on Wikipedia. We are not supposed to have subsections for relatively small information. These new subsection headings are not needed unless they can be significantly expanded. And they really don't need significant expansion anyway. We shouldn't be trying to put the whole trial into this article. And these topics can be presented in the same order without the extra headings. I'm not opposed to extra headings as long as they are needed. I'm also okay with your suggestion to merge Legal representation and jury selection; I'd thought of that too. I only decided on Jury selection and opening statements because I needed to make a choice-example and it's not a bad combination. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Many things happened with the lawyers...change ups occurred, some came on for free, others left when casey declared herself (or was declared by the Judge pending that portion of pre-trial events) as indigent (such as Linda K. B.), one lawyer is suing the other (as in the citation), etc. The point is, I can and might add to things at some point in the future, so these titles are more of a framework. I don't really mind how they are divided up for the time being, so if you want to re-combine them differently then go ahead. Again, I'm merely trying to get a framework set up for the future. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, LaughingGuy, first seven sentences were not needed since not responsive to my comments but only to what you imagine my views to be. Anyway, what is necessary to add is merely some minor details around the facts that Baez was lead attorney and Mason joined later, but I didn't want to mention names in expansion note. So will think about it all per your second paragraph. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. The first seven were from Flyer. Yes, mason joined later. Again, there is a lot of things i want to add to the article, that being one...Mason has made two separate types of statements (on multiple occasions) to the media about his purpose on joining the team. One statement given was that he joined the team because he felt Baez was unjustly attacked by the media and he wanted to help Baez, who is new and still a 'greenhorn' at law (as was seen in a lot of the pre-trial events). Another statement he gave, which occurred immediately after a hearing at the courthouse (which I viewed on youtube) is that he (Mason) only joined the team because he had been doing this for 40 years and to him it was simply "fun" (his exact word). Again, there are a lot of things that could (and maybe even should) be added, but my highest priority, in adding to the article, is the Evidence section which is very anemic (and somewhat unclear) as I've stated before. This, of course, also included the focus of the diary. At any rate, if you want to re-combine sections differently, then you're welcome by me to do so. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved this up here but it is repeated where I first put it. There is a Template under the Legal Representative Section that states: "This section requires expansion with some information on actual defense team". Does the editor mean persons in the Defense team other than Mason and Baez? Perhaps they mean representatives in the "defense team" that have not been named here? Does that also mean we will have to do it for the entire Prosecution team? Do they want every member of the Defense team named? It's going too be a very long list. I cannot see who put this up but Helpful Pixie Bot just dated it. No name shows in the edit history.  Considering the detail already in the article, It's laughable.  Are they really serious?  My lady leopard (see my user page) is telling me it is true but I think she is teasing me.  This article is getting rather long-in-the tooth for such detail don't you think?   See: Good article criteria 3(B)Mugginsx (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

template or notice under section "Legal Representative"
There is a Template under the Legal Representative Section that states: "This section requires expansion with some information on actual defense team". Does the editor mean persons in the Defense team other than Mason and Baez? Perhaps they mean representatives in the "defense team" that have not been named here? Do they want every member of the Defense team named It's going too be a very long list. I cannot see who put this up but Helpful Pixie Bot just dated it. No name shows in the edit history.Mugginsx (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mugginsx. Its hard to find, but the discussion is way up there. Click here to go up there. It's my understanding the tag was added by CarolMooredc. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, Thank you, will go there. Mugginsx (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus to move the "Should Casey Anthony have her own article?" discussion back to Talk:Casey Anthony
This belongs at Talk:Casey Anthony, where the discussion was already being had. Those who want to participate in that discussion should be directed there.

As I stated to Avanu, who decided to bring this discussion here, this was never a discussion about a split. Thus, even the split tag is inaccurate. It's a discussion about whether or not Casey Anthony should have her own article, which means that the discussion belongs there. There is nothing in this article to split into an article titled Casey Anthony (aside from her jailhouse letters), which has been made clear in the discussion that was transported here. But he decided to bring this tired discussion here without others weighing in on whether or not that should be done. I can't be the only one who doesn't care much for this discussion and would rather it not take up this talk page. Can we gain some WP:Consensus on whether this discussion should stay here or be sent back to where it was? Or will someone at least be WP:Bold and send this discussion back to its appropriate title? Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there aren't any objections within a day or two, I will go ahead and be "bold" and undo the move. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this why everytime I try to get to talk:Casey Anthony I bounce back here? -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. All the drama about bestowing Casey Anthony an article has been brought here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you plan on having information at the Casey Anthony article that is completely independent of this one? If not, then you're talking about a split. Since currently the main article redirects here, the Talk page should as well. Having the discussion at the Talk page of a nonexistent page means fewer people will see it. -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't categorize this as a split, as the discussion is not one on size nor undue weight, and the article potentially being created would not contain information being "split" from this one. This is a discussion on notability. Notability must be established on a given subject, prior to article creation, whether it would be a "split" or an independent article. Beyond that, I don't believe the discussion should have been relocated, because it was in progress. If you felt people here would be interested in the RFC, you should have simply left a notification, here. For instance, "There is currently an RFC in progress, discussing whether Casey Anthony warrants an article. It is located at Talk:Casey Anthony." Such a notification would have been sufficient. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 22:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, Avanu, we're not talking about about a split, per what I and Chickenmonkey stated. Talk pages remain existing while their articles don't all the time. If the Casey Anthony article is created, for example, the discussion you moved here will be more relevant there. Most people looking over this article already know about this discussion. New people can simply be directed to the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I say put it back to the way it was and remove the banner from the article. I am discussing things about this article but I am also in discussions over there, at least I was.  I had no problems knowing about the discussions going on at Casey Anthony because the editors here have been kind enough to let people know.  As for things in this article, I believe that  the letters and the civil case should be at least repeated over at a new article.  I'm not sure of anything else, yet.  As you can tell I think she meets notability and that there's no concerns about privacy since she has been in the public eye for so long.  I think there is a lot more that can be put into an article under her name that can't be put into this one because of the title.  Just my opinion of course, but still an opinion, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  23:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally the discussion would take place here, but if we like it there, that's fine too. There's no hard rule, I don't think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Casey Anthony is a BLP1E and there is a redirect there for the time being. While I think it would be perfectly fine to have a separate article, having a separate discussion at a non-existent article seems a bit silly.  This is the focal point of all such articles that relate to these people, and logically the discussion should take place here.  Anyone going to the old Talk page will be redirected here, so I really don't see what the problem is. (Also, does it strike you as biased to have a debate over whether to create an article at its own Talk page?) -- Avanu (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't strike me as biased. It doesn't really matter where the discussion is: here, there, or some other place. The same discussion is going to occur, no matter where it is located. Therefore, the more logical act would have been to let it conclude where it began, considering there may be links pointed to it, editors may believe it has ended if it is no longer located where they recall it being located, etc. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 01:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't 'Death of Caylee Anthony' the focus of all the spinoff articles? I mean without the event that this article covers, would those other people have been notable?  So wouldn't it make more sense for the debate about spinning off another article begin here?  I really didn't expect this to be a problem, and I moved all the content from 'Talk:Casey Anthony' to here, so no one would miss their discussions. But if this is really a problem, I guess move it back.  Does Wikipedia have something like the inverse of AfD?  Like 'Articles for Creation'? Anyway, it seemed to me that if Casey Anthony was a redirect to here, the Talk page for it should have been redirecting here also.  That seems like the normal protocol for things, and it is what I've usually seen happen when people create a redirect. -- Avanu (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt the "good faith" of your move of the discussion; it just seems logical to let the discussion conclude where it began, especially since it had been there for three weeks. It doesn't really matter if it stays here, or goes back. Articles for Creation does exist. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 02:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Avanu, there is nothing at all silly about having this discussion at the Casey Anthony talk page. That is where it should be had, because it does not concern this article (per the opposition to your move above). This certainly is not a split discussion and yet you still have not removed the tag. Having discussions on a talk page of a non-existent article happens all the time on Wikipedia. Clearly, you haven't seen such a thing before now, but I have. Once that discussion is over, it will belong there for future reference as to why that article was or was not created. Not here. The problem with having it here is that it does not belong here, and editors who feel like me would rather not have this tired discussion taking up this talk page. Whether or not Casey Anthony deserves an article has nothing to do with the article titled Death of Caylee Anthony...unless referring to the fact that she is only notable for what this article describes. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Move back material on new article ideas to Talk: Casey Anthony. I was confused at first too, but since the trial about the death of caylee anthony is still being discussed on this page in detail, it might be better to move the other discussion back to where it was with a notice as to where that discussion is so that no editor is left out.  Everyone on both sides of the issue is important and should be heard but are getting lost in the bulk of the different discussions.  A direction or re-direction of some kind that everyone can readily see should be OK, in my opinion.  Otherwise, it going to be a maze and almost impossible to try to keep discussion of details of this present article together.  Mugginsx (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a consensus to move or keep it, and I don't really care. But I do have a problem with bague section header ''Consensus to move the "Should Casey Anthony have her own article?" discussion back to Talk:Casey Anthony ''. Do you mean "Should we" or "There is." Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing confusing about this topic heading. And even if there is, since you make it out as though you're confused by it, my initial statement is clear that this section is about achieving consensus to move this discussion back to the Casey Anthony talk page. Therefore I don't see how you're confused about. Vague topic headings plague Wikipedia talk pages all the time. And how do we find out exactly what those topics are about? Well, by reading the initial statement in those sections. But, really, there's nothing vague about this topic heading at all. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the discussion back to the Casey Anthony talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia redirects
If a page is redirected to another, doesn't normal process ask for the Talk page to be redirected also? I'm kind of puzzled in the situation here with the Casey Anthony article being redirected here, but people above are asking for the associated Talk page to stay separate from this one. Anyone have a good answer for this? -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I told you above: Having discussions on a talk page of a non-existent article happens all the time on Wikipedia. Clearly, you haven't seen such a thing before now, but I have.


 * Since that answer was not a good answer for you, I don't know what else to tell you. But I will make this clear: The talk pages that usually still exist do because of their talk page history. They are not redirected when they serve as a reference point for past discussions (archives, for example), especially a past discussion about why the article was redirected. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Avanu - This might be helpful - From WP:R - "If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name." Shirt  waist &#9742;  09:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for consensus to remove the template off the actual article page
Would editors please vote yes or no to remove the Template located under Legal representative off the article page. The template reflects one editor's opinion and belongs on the article Talk page for discussion and/or a vote. This editor's is not an administrator and should not be putting one editor's opinion on the article page. If we all did it, think how it would look. The request for more than names of counsel and perhaps why they did not remain is quite enough. Further information is not shown on any other trial articles that this editor has researched, including, but not limited to: David Westerfield murder trial, OJ Simpson murder trial, Susan Smith murder trial and Andrea Yates murder trial. We are going far afield of possible GA article status. See especially 3(b) Good article criteria Thanks.


 * yes, to remove editor's template in Legal Representative Section. Mugginsx (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Why not just clean up the paragraph in question? It spends more space on trivia about who left the case than it does on who the legal team defending Casey Anthony actually was. This seems to be the template inserter's complaint. Fix it and you can remove the template. --agr (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not the paragraph, it is a template requesting "more" information not less. Read it please. Mugginsx (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did read it. It asks for "some information on actual defense team." I take that as a complaint about the imbalance of information on who left and when vs the team that won the case. Fell free to ask the editor who placed the template if you have doubts about what was requested. The paragraph needs fixing in any case. No one at this point cares when lawyer X filed a motion to leave. --agr (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It asks for "expansion". I think we agree there is no need for expansion.  That was all I was trying to say.  That and the fact that we don't need every editor putting a banner IN the actual article.  Mugginsx (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone removed everything except her attorneys which left like a sentence there. I reverted the boldness of this editor since what is there tells all the attorneys involved from the beginning.  I hope others agree with my boldness, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Crohnie. I don't mind your boldness and appreciate that you posted a comment here following your revert.  In any event,  I acted based on agr's contention above that prior attorneys withdrawing from the case is more or less minutiae, with which I agree. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you know that is everyone? Why include everyone? It's just irrelevant. See my new edit I was just about to put in - which also includes prosecutors who are poorly identified in text, as well as refs for added material. This improves the clarity of the whole article and I hope people will not argue against that simple NPOV and Encyclopedic principle. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with the latest edit, as it puts relevant counsel involved and jury selection together while dropping the clutter of the prior attorneys (probably a holdover from early-on in the article). AzureCitizen (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better, no complaints now from me. :) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, four editors (Me, AGR, AzureCitizen, Crohnie) think my edit (built on another editor's removal of unnecessary material) was fine but Muggins insists on reverting it, ignoring other editors' comments and writing merely "It was fine the way it was." That is what is called going against consensus, Mugginsx. It is also just one more incidence on your part of edit warring (which remember does not require 3rr). CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Azure and Crohnie and AG - undid my reversion but you should know that Carolmooredc changed wording and references according to her edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=442519812&oldid=442518602 .  You will have to put them back the way they were if you want it the way it formerly was.  I didn't touch them  Just hit "Undo".  In fact, for the record, I have never previously removed any material from that section.  Just saw the template which said it needed "expansion" and disagreed.  Chrohnie, the edit summaries and edit histories show who made the revisions.Mugginsx (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I just took a closer look at the changes Carolmooredc made and I don't agree with all of it. Sorry to add to the confusion here.  I didn't look close enough the first time.  I don't like the combining of sections like was done and I really don't like the new name for the section.  It looks to me like Carolmooredc is doing what she wanted to do long ago which is reorganize/rewrite this article.  That I do not agree with.  I like that the prosecuters and the defense attorneys are named that actually was involved in the final case.  I don't like that so much of the previous information seems to be gone now.  I think Carol you have been way to bold esp. with the way editors have commented about what you wanted to do.  With what you have listed below to change too, no, I do no agree with this.  Sorry, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)  Also, I'm done for today, should have stopped long ago so I didn't make this mistake. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just took a look at it. I agree with Crohnie's last comments...it was slaughtered. The majority of the paragraph is dedicated to the defense. The prosecution's position is split up. For someone concerned with chrono order, the prosecution, who spoke first during opening statements, should at least be described first. I'll take a look at it again, but in the mean time, it at least needs to be re-structured. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit 2: I also wanted to say that the article keeps introducing the prosecutors and defense counsel. I have made attempts to remove the redundant introductions (e.g. baez lead for the defense) but my edits are reverted. I guess the reader is presumed to suffer from short-term memory loss and needs to be re-introduced to the lawyers. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer last two comments:
 * First, please note that User:AzureCitizen first deleted all the old material and I built on his/her edit. See his comments about that and address him/her first.
 * Second, there is one sentence on prosecutors, one on defense and one on George/Cindy attorneys. How does that emphasize defense?
 * Third, deal with edits as they happen, not some memory of what someone said way back when or expectation of what they'll do in the future.
 * Fourth, sectioning-wise, why is separating the involved people (jury and attorneys) and putting jury in with opening arguments more logical than keeping jury and attorneys together. Explain the logic of your alternate proposal.
 * Finally, someone added at least one title before the most recent introductory material added. I agree that we don't have to keep calling individuals by their titles, but it's usually helpful the first couple times for new readers; or if something only mentioned way in beginning and then again not til end. Let's make it easy for readers. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another new reference to look at
I just found this and thought editors here would be interested in this new information. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  23:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing White Woman Syndrome
This entire media circus and public feeding frenzy is the CLASSIC example of Missing White Woman Syndrome. A simple google search -- http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=852&q=%22missing+white+woman+syndrome%22+caylee&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq= -- shows literally THOUSANDS of references to this specific term used in relation to the Caylee case. That fact that you think having MWWS referenced in the See Also "detracts" from whatever agenda you're trying to promote is not a reason to remove it. -- SmashTheState (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG for the first time ever, I am laughing so much, a link in the See also section has had to be referenced to be included. This has to be the best example of this kind of hysterical media coverage ever. Yet there are bizarrely there are an interminable numbers of people who think it can't be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.4.97 (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It does NOT have to be referenced. It is linked to an article. Removed the references. Mugginsx (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally removed it, because it doesn't apply. There are no reliable sources that I have found to support that this is a case of MWWS. The google search you link to doesn't prove anything. It's full of blogs, opinions and otherwise unreliable sources. I urge you to read up on our pages for identifying reliable sources and no personal attacks. Regards,  Swarm   X 20:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one asked for a reference. It was merely suggested that the see also link did not add to the article and in fact detracted from it. I still think it detracts, and is misplaced, but I see it has again been added demonstrating that you really don't care to reach any consensus. Cheers My76Strat  talk  20:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had typed a long response, full of citations and references and a bit on the purpose of consensus. Then I realized that I don't actually give a fuck.  You win.  -- SmashTheState (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are reliable sources referring to this event as a case of "missing white woman syndrome", perhaps it would be best to include that in the prose of the "publicity and aftermath" section, as opposed to merely linking to Missing white woman syndrome, in the "see also" section. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 21:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Examining Google search results is not a good way to determine article content because Google indexes many sites which aren't considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia's standards. See Google searches and numbers for more.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I promised myself I wasn't going to shove my dick back into the coal-fired cheese grater again, but here I am. When referring to the media itself, opinion pieces and blogs HOSTED BY THOSE SAME MEDIA OUTLETS, written by the very reporters producing said material, are a reliable source on criticism of the media for which they are working.  A reporter who writes an opinion column explicitly stating that the media circus around the Anthony trial is a case of MWWS is a reliable source -- regarding the media.  It is not self-published.  It is not even an article about other media.  They are articles written by reporters themselves critiquing their own behaviour in regard to the clusterfuck which was the Anthony trial hysterics.  As MugginsX pointed out earlier, references aren't necessary for "See Also" additions.  I demonstrated the Google search simply to show that there are significant numbers (ie/ 10,200) people who see the Anthony feeding frenzy as a classic case of Missing White Woman Syndrome -- and hence the purpose of adding it to the article.  But we all of us here know this has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and everything to do with the emotional hysterics of reactionaries who view any critical analysis as equivalent to molesting the pretty little white girls whose beaming visages gaze out with beatific perfection from a million Franklin Mint mail-order dinner plates. -- SmashTheState (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You should have remained true to yourself for now your motives are laid bare. My76Strat  talk  22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If I might make a suggestion here - why can't there be some material or at least a link to the Wiki article about this? It sounds as though some of the materials are well referenced.  If not, they can be searched for.  The amount of material could be discussed calmly and with respect.  I do not think it is anymore radical than many of the other news and media reports of this case. Mugginsx (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely there must be some commentary somewhere on just why this particular missing person story turned into a national media event. Missing white woman syndrome might be related, or maybe it's more like "missing cute little white girl" syndrome. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article seems to indicate that there is more media attention given to white children who are lost or missing than non-white. I think it is significant.  I also think it is probably true - but needs to be referenced carefully and as fully as possible.  Perhaps more material and statistics can be found to prove this point.  If it is true and properly referenced then I do not see why it cannot be in the article perhaps under the heading that refers to media attention.  Heck, it's much more significant than Nancy Grace's quotes and, in my opinion, alot more important. Mugginsx (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of mentioning it through text in this article, its relation to this case can also be mentioned in its own article. Then, linking it in the See also section of this article would be justified. Links are included in the See also section in this way all the time -- when the articles they are linking to are also covering the topic.


 * Baseball Bugs, yes, the Public and media reactions section deals with "just why this particular missing person story turned into a national media event." That section would not have been complete without such commentary. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this case is already mentioned in the Missing white woman syndrome article with a source. That makes linking it in the See also section of this article justified. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what has confused or thrown most people who remove that wiki link is because they give a cursory view of the title "missing white woman" and think it doesn't apply in this case, because it was a missing toddler. But don't judge it only by its title, but by its substance. And there's a case to be made that it does in fact apply. I can see it in the See also section. I'm not strong for it either way. But I personally would NOT remove it if I saw it. And I would think it uptight if anyone did (or at the very least, lazy...in not actually understanding or reading the wiki article and see how it does in fact relate, at least in some sense.) Just my opinion. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, what this really brings up is does there need to be a controversies section? I am sure we list a few others, like feminist perspectives on why charges of manipulation by a sexually abusive father are ignored. Or civil rights views on whether law enforcement tacitly colluded with a complicit father who was a former cop and close to local law enforcement? Assuming WP:RS comment on various circulating theories like these, among other controversies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No Controversies sections are needed, especially not at this point in time (where there are no "feminist perspectives on why charges of manipulation by a sexually abusive father are ignored"). We don't need to give WP:UNDUE weight to the negative aspects of this case, as was one of the concerns expressed at the BLP Noticeboard. I believe it's clear why the judge didn't allow the sexual abuse allegations in closing arguments (though these claims were allowed pre-closing arguments) -- there was no proof, and, to many people, this has no bearing on whether or not she killed her child. It certainly does not excuse her odd behavior. It may explain it, but the jurors stated that the way she behaved had no bearing on their verdict. So... Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah, I'm still not seeing any reliable sources that support the notion that the attention this case has received is a result of MWWS, apart from one claim that an opinion piece is a reliable source (which is simply not factual). In response to Flyer above, the inclusion in the MWWS article is just as debatable, and the source provided is a statement of opinon and not a "reliable source".  Swarm   X 16:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One of these might be usable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I looked through those already; we have:
 * an opinion piece (the same one cited above) ❌,
 * an NPR blog that defines MWWS ❌,
 * an article that laments MWWS and provides several examples, not including Casey Anthony ❌,
 * an article accusing ABC News of MWWS due to the hiring of a kidnapping victim ❌,
 * and the last one, which briefly raises the question (the mention is literally in question form), not supporting the claim directly ❌.
 * The closest thing to a reliable source to support this is one opinion piece from a minor newspaper. That is a problem. That is not enough.  Swarm   X 17:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Swarm and yet the link remains. It suggests (rather teaches) this syndrome is responsible for our interest in this story. And its basis is the flimsy POV of those who support such a premise. My76Strat  talk  17:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just a See also link.  Not something stated (as far as I can tell) in the main body of the article. So why the big fuss? That SmashTheState wants it there.   Many "See also" links in articles don't necessarily have 100% relation to the main article it's posted in.   So what?  As long as there is arguably SOME connection or relation, and if some news sources brought it up, whether we personally like it or not or totally agree or not, it's whatever.  If SmashTheState wants to put it there, and he has made at least some case for its application or relation, I don't see the big deal.  It's not like putting "serial killers" or something in the See also section.  Or "Satanic ritual murders"...or something like that, that has NO real relationship to the article, at all.   "MWWS" at least is SOMEWHAT pertinent or relational, in some sense.   So to me it's whatever.  I can see it being there.   Or not.  I don't think this matter is worth this much stress, energy, time, or attention.   So I doubt I'll comment again on it, after this.  Cheerio. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of great stress to anybody, and its certainly not the end of the world. However, those like SmashTheState are making a certain claim. The claim is, as Strat said, that this syndrome is responsible for society's interest in the story. This is certainly a questionable claim, and one that requires a burden of proof to be met. I've searched for reliable sources to support the claim, but I can't find any. No one else has provided any. Right now, the claim is in dispute, and no one in favor of including it has provided reliable sources. Simple as that. As to why society was so fascinated with this case, many media sources and psychologists have written about this with no mention of MWWS.  Swarm   X 10:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's not really true. I've heard Geraldo Rivera (and a few others) say that if this was a black woman who killed (or accidentally killed) her black child in Florida (which happens) this would NOT have gotten NEARLY as much attention, if at all. But, Geraldo and others continue, because Casey is a W-H-I-T-E woman, and the little girl was W-H-I-T-E, that that is at least PART of why the big attention and frenzy.  Which, as an example, can be seen right here. Not sure how you missed that, but it's been there.  Peace. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * addendum. Please see what I wrote just above, before reading this.  I just noticed that the body of the article DOES have something (however brief) about "white woman", said by an authority on psychology.  The segment reads this way: "Psychologist Dr. Karyl McBride discussed how some mothers stray away from "the saintly archetype" expected of mothers. "We want so badly to hang onto the belief system that mothers don't harm children," she stated. "It's fascinating that the defense in the Anthony case found a way to blame the father. While we don't know what is true and maybe never will, it is worth taking a look at the narcissistic family when maternal narcissism rules the roost. Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman and the fact that the case includes such things as sex, lies, and videotapes makes it irresistible."[105]"  My point is that the very article itself gives at least a bit of justification (and a "source" in a sense) for the whole "white woman" angle.   The MWWS article has at least some reason to be in the "See also" section.  Why not just let this go already?  If it means this much to "SmashTheState" and we see journalists like Rivera and psychiatrists like "Dr McBride" saying things like this, then that gives at least some credence to the point here.  Regards... Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote that you're touting from the article is apparently a misquote. The source it gives (Christian Post) does not quote her as saying that, it paraphrases a quote of hers, saying, "McBride said Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman..." That's not a quote. If you look at Dr. McBride's actual quote, she says, "There are theories touted that the interest is due to Casey being a beautiful white woman ... While possibly ... true, there seems to be an underlying theme to the trial related to the concept of narcissism..." McBride has written on 'narcissistic mothers' in the past, and she speculates in the article that narcissism may play a role in the public's fascination. The McBride quote mentions her being "beautiful and white" in passing and she goes on to make a different point, that's the kind of out of context misquoting that could result in expulsion if done intentionally in a university setting. I have no idea how the hell it got worked into a quote attributed to Dr. McBride; I assume it was an honest mistake during this massive edit and Flyer22 simply didn't catch it. That needs to be fixed.


 * To address your first point, this is an age-old issue addressed by WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(Author) says...'" In other words, (consider the link you provided) you can say, "Bernard Goldberg has opined that the case would not have gotten as much media attention if it the Anthonys were black, or if there wasn't video of her before her death..."[ref] You can't use his opinion to say, "Some have theorized that this is a case of MWWS"[ref] But again, if you're going to include Goldberg's MWWS-inclined onion, you have to include those who have other theories which would most likely be done in a new section that talks about the reasons for the public fascination. The concept of such a section reeks of WP:Recentism and WP:Undue weight to me, but if you think its big enough of an issue to write on the different opinions of "why we're fascinated by Casey Anthony", be my guest.


 * As to why I won't "just let this go", read my previous comments, I've clearly outlined where I'm coming from, which is strictly the lack of reliable sources and undue weight. There's been a lot of discussion and virtually no constructive results (you've just posted the second link, in the whole discussion which is not a reliable source either.)  Swarm   X 00:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As I originally asserted, the inclusion of this link detracts from the article. Perhaps there are some who prefer edits which diminish an articles quality. I believe they are considered trolls. To any one who thinks my opinion is derived by the reflection I see in my Franklin Mint plates, I suggest you continue scratching your lottery ticket with the case quarter that use to be your food stamp dollar and leave your divisive POV out of this article. My76Strat  talk  00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To Swarm above. I think one point you're missing is that the very article MWWS itself also goes into the whole thing of THEORY and not necessarily conclusive. That's the POINT in a way.    It's a notion that's out there.    And McBride saying "possibly true" as far as the attention this has gotten at least partly being cuz "she's a white woman" IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.  lol....    "Possibly true" is not dismissing it, and is giving it some plausibility.    However "passing" the remark was.   Also Geraldo and other established commentators and journalists HAVE brought this up.  And again, to re-eiterate, the very article MWWS itself goes into the point about it being a possible phenomenon and theory too.    So since this was raised in this Anthony case, as to why this much attention, then I see a reason to have it in the See also section.    Again, to dismiss the (valid) point that if this had been a black mother with black daughter (as has happened already) this probably (not for sure, but probably) would not have received nearly this much attention, scrutiny, or hysteria.   Hence SmashTheState's point about how this relates somewhat to MWWS.   (By the way, as for My76Strat's comment, that's moot, as there's no need to name-call or think people as "trolls" for something like this.  And it's just your opinion that this greatly uh "detracts" from this article.) Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course you are correct that there is no reason to name call. I almost didn't do it. And your wiki friend was perfectly cordial when he referred to me as an (emotionally hysterical reactionary who views critical analysis as equivalent to molesting the pretty little white girls). By all means if this is probably (not for sure but probably) "uh" a (valid) point then it certainly belongs. If only you had enunciated these things sooner! My76Strat  talk  08:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, well I never said that.  He may have.   But I was just making the point that at least SOME case can be made for the inclusion of this link as a reference article with some pertinence.   It's not like I (or SmashTheState, whom I don't even know) was just making this up or imagining it or speculating it.  This matter HAS been brought up a number of times, in the news, in commentaries, in discussions, in analyses.   As to why THIS much attention.  As maybe PART of the reason.  It's whatever...  If a psychiatrist said it was "possible"...and it's in the body of the article (even if slightly mis-quoted), and it's been brought up in general, in the media, sometimes, and also common sense and vision and hearing tells us that this much media attention and frenzy does not generally happen when a young black mother (accidentally or intentionally) kills her toddler child, which may make local news or whatever, but not inter-galactic news like this Casey thing has, then I don't see THAT much of a problem with having it as a See also wiki link.  That's really all I was saying.   Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I do believe that you are sincere and apologize for mocking you. Thanks for all of your input to this discussion, and this article. My76Strat  talk  16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hashem- the problem is that this is not a typical MWWS case. There are several instances that are generally considered to be textbook examples of MWWS (i.e. Natalee Holloway, Laci Peterson, etc.) However, this is not one of those cases. Yes, some commentators have opined that race has something to do with it, but there has been a lot of debate and discussion in the media about why the case is so popular. Dr. McBride thinks that the public can't believe and doesn't understand the alleged murder. This article opines that the people were angry at Casey Anthony and were demanding justice, or that they simply couldn't believe the blatant lies. The Miami herald says the case is a "breathless soap opera with tabloid twists and turns, characters brought to life by lies, a phantom nanny accused of kidnapping the child, incest claims, the specter of a death sentence – and a rapt American audience that can’t seem to get enough of the spectacle playing out in Orlando, land of The Mouse." This author says its because "mothers who (allegedly) kill ... are always fascinating to people ... [And that] the details of the crime are particularly lurid ... and Casey and Caylee so photogenic, that they provide endless tabloid fodder." Many blame Nancy Grace and/or HLN for hyping up the story and making Casey a celebrity. Anyway, the point is that while some commentators have speculated about a link to MWWS, that isn't necessarily a "prevailing theory". There are many different opinions being cast left and right, and MWWS is only one of those. By including the link in the 'see also' section, we imply that this is generally considered to be an example of the syndrome, when that's a debatable claim, at best.


 * Now, again, I'm not against going into the different opinions that exist on the case's unusual popularity in the article. However, I am absolutely against just having it in the see also section because that makes a certain implication that isn't completely accepted.  Swarm   X 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why I myself said it was PART of the issue. Of course not the only.  But it's been brought up arguably ENOUGH times by several different types (doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc) to be considered, to some extent at least.  And the article that "SmashTheState" put in one of his comments above, that link, has "missing white woman" IN THE VERY TITLE OF THE ARTICLE...that deals with the Casey Anthony case.   So what that it's "not prevailing".  Not everything is all the time.  But it's there. It's not zero.  Not even close to zero.  But brought up by several parties, and writers, now.  That's all. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Several different types" have also said that no jury would convict a white accused into the hands of a black Judge, I forget the syndrome, but I seriously doubt it has any bearing on this article. My76Strat talk  21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "it's been brought up arguably ENOUGH times ... to be considered..." ← I don't necessarily disagree with that. The only problem is, I've seen nothing convincing. One columnist from a minor newspaper explicitly opines that this is MWWS. One political commentator implies as much, and you claim to have heard a television host imply the same (which I'll take your word for, but there's no RS). And one psychologist says, "that may be true, but this is my theory..." That's all I've seen. I haven't heard television commentators say this like you apparently have (Fox bashing a competitor? :P). So I'm strongly suspicious that these opinions shouldn't be given undue weight.  Swarm   X 00:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the repeated removal of MWWS from See Also, I have initiated proceedings for content dispute mediation here. -- SmashTheState (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * SMASHtheSTATE: Try this it is the FBI statistical Center.  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tdtp&tid=3 or e-mail FBI child crimes division if you can't readily find it on the website.  With FBI referece I would vote yes to put it in the See Also Section but no paragraph.  There is already way too much material in this article.  Everyone wants a piece of the article and no one wants to compromise. Voted over in the indicated section too.   Pretty discouraging.  Be back later, maybe. Mugginsx (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Mugginsx (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, this source might help. I didn't see a link above. An opinion from WaPo: If Caylee Anthony had been black, would you know her name? (and letters to the editor). The author, Keith L. Alexander, had the article picked up by The Journal Gazette and The Oregonian. Alexander says race/socioeconomics "may have played a part, but there were other reasons that Caylee became a household name and Aja and her sisters did not." Jesanj (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The point being made is that op-ed pieces like the one you provided aren't good enough to support inclusion of a controversial link such as this. I also believe that adding such a link detracts from the article's quality, and puts undue weight on this particular "syndrome" while ignoring all the other possible reasons for the media's fascination with this case. Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * At its base, the see also section should be a reasonable list of links that would be in a hypothetically "perfect" article. Often times, the links in the see also section would be better served as prose within the body of the article. "Missing White Woman Syndrome" is one such time. As it is "controversial" and "editorial", in nature, it makes more sense to remove it from the see also section and work it into the body of the article, at an appropriate place. Op-ed pieces published by reputable and reliable sources can be used, but the statements should be attributed to the person whose opinion it is; that is another reason to place it in the prose, instead of the see also section. While we're on the subject, the see also section shouldn't usually include links that are already in the prose of the article. The point of the see also section is to work as an appendix that complements the information within the article, not as a glossary that repeats the information. There's no reason the see also section should be repeating the names of Belvin Perry, Jose Baez, and Cheney Mason. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 23:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. After reading Swarm's argument above for including MWWS into the article body along with several other opposing theories (only a few of which he points out), while removing the superfluous and WP:UNDUE "See also" entry, I'm convinced this is the preferred way to go if article quality is a priority. Shirt  waist &#9742;  23:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting a sentence or two in the text to explain what various sources were saying makes sense. But I do think it is just one of several factors (as described by Swarm above) leading to notoriety, and not necessarily the main one. Also, a lot of people like me barely payed attention (perhaps in part because of media hype and suspected MWWS) until the defense started talking about incest, and suddenly Casey's strange behavior began to make more sense and the possibility of prosecutorial over-charging became an issue. A review of post trial editorials might make that clear, but not something I'm even thinking about trying to document at this point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for the closure of the discussion of this issue at the Dispute resolution noticeboard has been made, and includes a straw poll on the outcome. Your input into that proposal and poll, which can be directly accessed here is encouraged. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

While Polls are evil, I have reviewed the discussion and closed it. You can review my closure at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Regards, Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  10:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing order of witnesses/evidence now documented
I have now thoroughly reviewed all evidence in day by day trial articles and made my own timeline. So I can document the dates existing evidence already in this article actually was presented at trial, next to the order it is presented in the article.

"Evidence section"
 * June 4th: Hair (or root) banding;
 * June 6 and 7th: Vass and air samples
 * June 27th: Defense witness Furton to refute Vass (at least has to be mentioned as defense witness)
 * June 14: DNA analysis, laundry bag, duct tape, and plastic bags, blanket, clothes, etc. from crime scene
 * May 26: Morales cartoon
 * June 8: John Dennis Bradley on 84 searches and recant to prosecutors during the trial

"Witness testimony" section Is there any justification for this non-chronological order of trial evidence in two different sections? (It certainly makes prosecution case look sloppy, among other criticisms.) If not, the pre-trial descriptions of evidence either can go into under the investigation section or - if vague or duplicative - be removed. Everything else can be moved down in proper order under Witness testimony. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * June 10: Jan Garavaglia - medical examiner and tape and chloroform
 * June 7: Gerus cadaver dogs
 * June 8: Bradley’s actual testimony with short repeat mention of recant
 * Date uncertain: Baez asked George if sexually abused Casey  Not in Source.  Will continue to look for date it actually happened and an accurate ref.
 * June 23: Cindy says searched for Chloroform


 * Carol, I appreciate you wanting to improve the article, and tweaking some inconsistencies or problems, or sequence issues, etc... And you do have a valid point or two, I feel. But let's not go overboard either. That's all I'm saying.   I mean, if you see a real mistake or problem, then fix it. That's true. Any inconsistencies, then adjust and reconcile them.  With real solid justification and source backing, or logic. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, there already have been reams of prose by a couple editors against making such sensible changes. Thus I had to present the evidence for other editors to see in the flesh :-) Also adding a few more good new sources for areas that remain a bit unclear. So will give it a couple days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Carol, those "reams of prose" as you so conveniently call them at this juncture, were in reality the forming of a "consensus" against the outline you proposed then. I suggest you put your latest massive change suggestion to a vote as you expect everyone else to do and is, in fact, correct Wiki procedure.  Of course, that would be when regularly contributing editors are usually here.  Just glancing at the article, it appears that the Evidence presented is already in chronological order so I don't understand what you are getting on about but I am sure you will present it to all editors tomorrow for consensus.
 * Hashem sfarim (talk) did not agree;
 * and I too vote "No" as now presented. Evidence Section is fine as it is. I may entertain a change as you "perfect" and present that proposed revision. Mugginsx (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc, it makes sense that the evidence is going to be mentioned in both the Evidence section and Witness testimony sections, so that is not a problem. If you want the evidence presented in order in the Evidence section, then go ahead and put it in order. But it certainly does not have to be put in order. And putting some things in order in the Witness testimony section could cause it not to flow well. For example, having what the defense said, then what the prosecution said, without matching the arguments up against each other could do such a thing. And what I mean by that is...is that it makes more sense to me to have the defense's argument countered with the prosecution's argument when the arguments are about the same thing. But as for how the section currently is, I happen to feel that mentioning Dr. Jan Garavaglia (what she says about how Caylee died and the chloroform) before mentioning the cadaver dogs flows better than the other way around. But I'm not opposed to it being swapped.


 * There is no reason to axe the Evidence section and place that information in the Investigation section. I also see no good reason to keep trying to get Bradley's admission placed in what is now the Witness testimony section (when this admission was not part of his testimony). And if any subheadings should not exist, it's the Attorneys and jury, Opening statements...and Witness testimony subheadings, per what I stated at . The only subheading that can be argued as having a valid existence is Witness testimony, since that can be expanded significantly...while the other two cannot.


 * And, finally, Baez asking George if he sexually abused Casey is in the CNN source, since it says (on Page 5) "George Anthony denied abusing his daughter in testimony." But it's apparent that you mean it doesn't explicitly state that Baez asked George about that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm...wow. I mean wow. So does this mean the entire article is being re-written? I'm actually scared....wow, wow. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * [Insert]: I can't tell if you really are scared or being facetious. In any case, logical reordering of paragraphs happens all the time. If people are terrified of working with others to improve articles, they should just work on their own blogs :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, you are entirely too cynical ThisLaughingGuyRightHere. Why don't you be nice like me?  (smile).  Did you find out what ultimately happened to the diary evidence? side bar discussion or -in-camera hearing or did the jury hear it and was told to ignore?  I don't think so but I can't prove it. Where did it die?  I have failed to find that final part of the story. 10:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Mugginsx (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stated reasons to move the material; you have not given ones to keep them disconnected and out of chrono order, except "it makes sense," which I think any disinterested party would agree it does not. (And happily it looks like Dispute Resolution Noticeboard does in fact attract disinterested parties so it's a good place to go for issues like this that don't clearly fall under other boards.)
 * I know Baez asked George, but did he do it the first day of testimony when he was a prosecution witness or at the end, during the defense presentation? I'm just having trouble pinning down which but will fill in the blank when inevitably I find out.
 * It's probable the prosecution just decided the diary date was too contestable so they just quietly dropped it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, your reasons to move the material are based on WP:ILIKEIT as well. It's about what makes more sense to you, so don't pretend that your reasons are more valid than mine. I didn't object to you wanting to reorder the Evidence section; I said go ahead. I don't even object to you reordering the Witness testimony section. I stated that things certainly do not have to be put in order. "And putting some things in order in the Witness testimony section could cause it not to flow well." What I did object to was your odd complaint that the Evidence and Witness testimony sections both mention some of the evidence. Well, yeah, that's expected. Exactly how is that avoidable? It's not like we shouldn't have an Evidence section or that it should be merged with the Witness testimony section. And moving the material up to the Investigation section does not solve anything, because the evidence will still be mentioned in two or more spots (which is perfectly accepetable/fine/expected). Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Flyer: The molestation accusations were made in Defense opening statements and again in the trial Baez point blank ask George and george said no.  Since no evidence of molestation was presented at trial, and mitrochrondial DNA proved child was not of incest, the Defense was not allowed to use in closing arguments. Mugginsx (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you go there you will, I am sure, notify all interested editors on this Talk page as per wiki guidelines. As to the diary, I think you are basically correct but was looking for hard confirmation as to when and exactly how it was swashed should it come up again as these things often do.  Mugginsx (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI to fellow editors - as to the date of Morales testimony, he began testifying in trial (inside and outside of presence of the jury) on May 26th 2011 as a Prosecution witness. Prior to that there were multiple police interviews.  Have not finished listening to his testimony cannot say more at this time.  here is the testimony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYQ8qCRd4No - Part I.  There are more parts. Mugginsx (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming Mugginsx is referring to Dispute Resolution board, it reads: As a courtesy, please inform other editors if they are mentioned in a posting. Which I'll do. But stacking the deck with a lot of editors saying "keep this (illogical) order" probably won't impress the logical, encyclopedic mind. And why the emphasis on police interviews that never even made it near the trial, except perhaps with the motivation to present evidence of her guilt here that even prosecutors didn't find noteworthy and find her guilty on Wikipedia of what she was found not guilty at trial? Such POV editing in WP:BLP is frowned upon and would be one more in a long list of biased edits vs. BLP policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A great deal of information in police interviews made it to court. It is called proper BLP research. Searching for the truth everywhere and anywhere it can be found that is verifiable, including correct date witnesses were called, etc.   Grand Jury testimony is secret.  Only the verdict is public. Mugginsx (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mugginsx: Do you mean by "court" in the grand jury or other pre-trial proceedings? Or at trial? Hasn't everything specific that was pre-trial already been taken out of the article? Other remaining early referenced (2008-2010) material may remain inaccurate, incomplete or jumbled together, again which actually even makes the prosecution case look confusing. The only thing left is Bradley, which did technically happen during the trial and was excluded, as were a few other things you might want to see included. But why stick them way up there beforehand, instead of in order that they were excluded in the trial. It's incredibly silly IMHO. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying. What is confusing to you is not confusing to all others. And any time you repeat the same thing, it does not help. Also, I replied to you above in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Mugginsx comment directly above, not you. Just clarified, though I think it was pretty obvious. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. It wasn't too obvious to me, because you were addressing things that I commented on in response to you as well. Though I did see that the diary part was not directed at me. I just figured you were likely replying to both of us. I appreciate you clarifying. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to reply to Flyer22 following comments directly since I don't remember doing so - You wrote (parts I'm replying to anyway):
 * What I did object to was your odd complaint that the Evidence and Witness testimony sections both mention some of the evidence. Well, yeah, that's expected. Exactly how is that avoidable? It's not like we shouldn't have an Evidence section or that it should be merged with the Witness testimony section. Basically all the evidence is presented as witness testimony in its latest iteration at trial.
 * You also wrote: And moving the material up to the Investigation section does not solve anything, because the evidence will still be mentioned in two or more spots (which is perfectly accepetable/fine/expected). I'll correct my proposal to be that statements about earlier versions of evidence submitted be moved up to end of Arrest and Charges since it was after that that evidence was submitted; also a sentence or two on the grand jury evidence might be relevant to all that. I can do a bit more research on that.
 * Anyway, my next step is to do a draft User page of my proposed chrono order in the Witness testimony section with only evidence wording that's in now (except as mentioned above and any obvious minor corrections/tweaks that are necessary). So we don't need to have generalized debates and can wait til that's available. I just presented a heads up above to see what people might suggest. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, you wrote, "Basically all the evidence is presented as witness testimony in its latest iteration at trial." I'm not getting what you mean. My point is that of course the evidence is going to be presented in the Evidence section and then gone over by the prosecution and defense in the Witness testimony section.


 * "I'll correct my proposal to be that statements about earlier versions of evidence submitted be moved up to end of Arrest and Charges since it was after that that evidence was submitted." I'm not getting that either. If it's evidence or statements about the evidence, then it belongs in the Evidence section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please continue to make sure all drafts are on presented on this Talk Page, not inserted into the article, so we can readily and fairly look at it (or them) and vote up or down. All disputed edits, in particular this section changing and re-structuring discussion that has been disputed in the past over and over again only to be re-presented in slightly different form by the same above editor are to be voted for or against by consensus Consensus Process 3rd paragraph and elsewhere.  Thank you for your consideration. Mugginsx (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also see: Consensus:
 * Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions: When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. The main resources for this are as follows: (and list of various options like Third Opinions, Noticeboards, Requests for Comment, Informal Mediation by the (purported) Cabal, mediation, Village Pump.)
 * And don't forget every issue I've brought up has been brought up by various other editors dropping by or on one or more noticeboards. Just because they didn't stay very long doesn't mean their voices don't count. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I ask below but I'm going to ask again here, what noticeboards have you been bringing this to? Usually the first thing tried is an RFC.  Why would you take things to outside noticeboards before trying that first?  Have you linked to these board?  I know of one board that you have gone to, is there any others?  Thank you in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What a non-confusing draft would look like, for starters
If no others object to my placing any draft here, that's fine with me. Below is just an outline for starters. Obviously quite a few blanks need to be filled in so the prosecution case doesn't look laughably anemic and so that there's some indication there was a defense case. Arrests and charges section Add couple sentences briefly describing state of evidence as presented at that time with refs from that time period. Witness testimony That's it for now. Patience. I'm going to spend some time getting more familiar with whole timeline. CarolMooreDC (talk)
 * May 24-25? Date uncertain/still looking for date: Baez asked George if sexually abused Casey
 * May 26: Morales cartoon
 * June 4th: Hair (or root) banding;
 * June 6 & 7th: Vass and air samples
 * June 27th Defense witness Furton to refute Vass (here or in chrono, to be discussed)
 * June 7: Gerus cadaver dogs
 * June 8: John Dennis Bradley on 84 searches and recant to prosecutors during the trial
 * June 10: Jan Garavaglia - medical examiner on tape and chloroform
 * June 14 DNA analysis, laundry bag, duct tape, and plastic bags, blanket, clothes, etc. from crime scene
 * June 23: Cindy says searched for Chloroform
 * Just a reminder to all editors that there is already a "sister" article entitled Timeline of Casey Anthony case which encompasses a chronological order of the trial among other important events surrounding the trial. This article does talk about the trial but is more specifically related to the Death of Caylee Anthony, thus the different titles.  This dilineation was made by a consensus vote early on in the article's inception. Mugginsx (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You plan to notify all of those editors? That seems like excessive cross-posting, to me. If a discussion takes place, which involves this article, I believe the best course of action would be to simply leave a notification on this talk page. The presumption is that any interested editors are already watching this article (thus, "opting in"). You present an "opt out" model that is predicated on these editors having already watched this article in order to see this message. That is to say, if they haven't already watched this article, they most likely will not see their opportunity to "opt out" of your notifying them; if they have already watched this article, they would most likely see a notification left at this talk page, a central location. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 20:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, that sounds like good advice. Though the guidelines say we can notify editors on their talk page as well as long as the notice is neutral in message and just an "annoucement" when there is an actual discussion place and vote anticipated. I deleted off this page per your advice.  Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Chickenmonkey - the mentioning of users was in regards to fulfilling Carol's wishes that all users' sentiments be considered, both past and present, as almost some kind of preemptive threat about her "logical re-ordering"...err...re-writing of sections. Mugginsx was merely keeping true to that line of policy. It was Carol who was essentially arguing for "Consensus in Absentia", which of course, I don't think should be carried out to the letter of that ad hoc ruling since there were many who in the past wanted the article deleted. In fact, it was nominated for deletion. I believe you yourself have also hinted that a separate article should not be created, and that, this one (again hinting), should also be deleted. In other words, it was not necessarily Mugginsx's duty to inform users, merely that doing so would be seen as proper in such an ad hoc policy. To be succinct, you're blaming the wrong person who voluntarily took on a responsibility that wasn't necessarily hers to start.ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not blaming anyone; just mentioning that interested editors likely already watch this article, especially those who have already edited it. To clarify something else, I've never contended that this article should be deleted. I did say it should have been deleted, when it was first created (and it should have been) but that's neither here nor there, now. I've also contended that this article should not focus on the "death of Caylee Anthony" and instead should focus on the "Casey Anthony Trial". That's why I've abstained from editing it extensively. I suspect, in due time, this article will eventually be focused on what I feel is the correct event. Beyond that, we're all here to edit Wikipedia to the best of our ability, that certainly includes CarolMooreDC (I don't like to single out editors, in that way, but I felt it was necessary). With that in mind, we need to remember to try and focus our attention--and comments--on improving the article, and not on other editors who are, in good faith, only attempting to also improve the article. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 21:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI I know what you're saying. I also wanted a different title for this article but I was outvoted.  I also would have liked to see the timeline included with the title changed.  Outvoted there too.  So, I'm just trying to do the best I can with the title that's here.  Good faith is all well and good but some of the edits that have been made do not match the "minor" edit summaries so sometimes words say one thing and actual edit show something else. Mugginsx (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Chickenmonkey - to respond to your comments about mine about someone else' comments (if that hopefully isn't confusing), I'd also like to reference other comments who have pointed out that, it is policy to assume good faith, and in fact I do assume good faith, but I only assume good faith until such a time when an editor's actions and statements reflect a motive which is executed in a fashion other than good faith. In other words, if you give me a reason to think you aren't acting in good faith (and when i say "you" I don't mean you personally), then I no longer have an obligation to assume good faith about such an editor. I think it has been seen where many different editors stand, and as such, is the reason — at least partially — for the call to "Consensus In Absentia". I guess we see things differently, but that seems to be inherit with this kind of high-profile article. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that detail on Bradley's admission should stay out of the Witness testimony section, since it was not a part of his testimony. What is there now -- Bradley later discovered that his analysis was inaccurate and that there was only one search for chloroform, though this information was not presented to jurors by the prosecution (see above). -- is enough information on his recanting, and points people to the in-depth information on that.

Anyway, I don't mind Carol carrying out her reordering proposal, but I do not feel that we should have a "On [this day]" type of wording for everything. And by that, I mean the dates. We don't have to mention the dates each witness testified. Plenty of good or great Wikipedia articles are not hung up on dates like that. Carol is, but that is her personality. Personally, I don't feel that the material is confusing simply because not all of it is in chronological order and/or doesn't mention dates. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If I can say something to this - I researched David Westerfield (child rape and murder); Susan Smith; Andrea Yates both infanticide trials and even OJ's. In none of these (trial) articles was there this obsession about dates and order of dates.  I have researched the issue of the outline(s) and I think they are excessive to the article, even if it were a trial article.  But it's not even a trial article, though admittedly, there is much about the trial in it - These outline proposals are really about saying something over and over again that majority of editors have repeatedly said they don't want and also other matters which I have already mentioned.  I repeat, it is the same concept brought up over and over again.  I got outvoted twice on two different things. It was done by consensus, also some of my edits were reverted - I don't keep bringing the matter up again and again in slightly different words and ways nor do the other editors.  I have stated I will look at this newest proposal if and when it is presented ang give it a fair look and I will compare it with other similar Wiki articles and I will vote, if there is one, up or down the way I firmly believe. Mugginsx (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To add onto that, yes I was looking at the OJ article as well to use as a rough guide for this one. With OJ the Evidence seems to be bulleted in its own section. That is certainly one possibility to go with. If evidence is referenced on multiple occasions, then the reader can refer to the list to glean more information. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bullets look attractive in some articles. It is something I would not be opposed to as long as it wasn't overdone as I am sure that you agree with. Mugginsx (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we have to see the full proposal as she has promised she would present. I am certainly NOT  going to give carte blanche to something I have not seen in detail.  I like the way the article looks. I have learned to live with the title. If anything, the media section is a litte long-in-the-tooth.  I must see the full proposal.   I do not want to see many editors hard work undone on a whim. Mugginsx (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, about bullets...I don't think there would be more bullets in this article than OJ's. It's just an idea... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, we could look at the bullets. These mentions of bullets sounds like we're talking about the OJ Robbery article. (smile)


 * Can we at least all agree that we want to see the full proposal not just an outline before we go any further? It is not just about date and bullets other things were mentioned which would seem to indicate a bigger change than that.  Leaving now - be back in the morning. Mugginsx (talk) 23:16, 3 August

I can barely make out whether people want the draft here or on [clarify: one of my personal] talk pages. But let's be clear, I'm not talking about a timeline (and I do intend to fill in the trial detail in the timeline article before I do a first raft) as much as a logical presentation of the case in chrono order: the friends and relatives who said she partied, and lied about the job and nanny; the most recent analysis of the physical evidence from the car found after july 15 and of the crime scene and autopsy; the tatoo! Witnesses called and recalled by defense where major points made that jurors admit and/or obviously affected the verdict. CarolMooreDC (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "I can barely make out whether people want the draft here or on a talk page." This is the Talk page. We would like to see it here if you please.  That way, all editors can see.  Thank you.  Mugginsx (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I clarified above and said a number of times before, the alternative was one of my personal talk pages. It doesn't matter to me and if no one objects I'll put it here. However, the outline above is the raw material and I'll just note necessary tweaks and missing info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ThisLaughingGuyRightHere, I'm not for bulleted lists (and was thinking about that when I stated that I don't want a "On [this day]" type of wording for everything). I typically consider them unencyclopedic, since they are usually discouraged except for in certain cases (like the Cast sections of film articles). Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is 'no' for bullets. Lists are taboo, I see. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere  05:53, 6 August 2011
 * 'No' on the bullets. (I see what Flyer and LaughingGuyRightHere are talking about.) Mugginsx (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read the evidence section and removed duplications left behind I guess from this rewrite, my popups aren't working lately :(.  I also did some minor things that were missed.  I agree with there being too many On this (name the date) in the article.  I don't think a lot of this new info is being useful to the article.  I do have a problem that needs clarifying.  Is there one editor who is taking over this article?  It sure seems like it.  I left for a little while to see if it was just my opinion but I see it's not.  What I'm seeing is this editor saying if I can't get the support and consensus I want here than I will take it other places and repeat, rinse, recycle.  If this kind of behavior continues, I will leave the article to others to do.  In case no one noticed, a lot of other editors seemed to have left too.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with this policy on consensus --Consensus --  you should try to change it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above named editor should know that we are waiting on her to fulfill her intent to give a detailed draft of her change proposal. She said she was going to present a detailed proposal for a re-structure of a section of the article.  She have proposed this on three different occasions in different sections and we are still waiting.  An outline, as she herself has said, is not sufficient information for the large change proposal.  She said "Just be patient".  We are still waiting on that draft she proposed.  Since it affects many editors work, it needs consensus with the editors presently involved.  Mugginsx (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem I have Carolmooredc is you keep starting new section that seem to be asking or saying the same thing with a different twist to it. I left for awhile, not even lurking, only to find this talk page filled with the same stuff.  Well fine, I think I'll move on since you seem to think bringing questions to other boards is necessary instead of trying to bring editors to this page with and RFC which would have been the proper thing to do in my opinion.  What boards have you brought this to anyways?   As for the article, people it's now gotten too big with too much about Casey and not enough about what the article is titled, Casey.   Also, I think repeating over and over about Casey and her father is a blp violation.   I could be wrong, but I don't think saying he committed a crime is a good thing to do.  I think maybe it's best for me to leave now.  Have fun and happy editing to all of you, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * CrohnieGal: Please do not leave the article.  Your voice is heard here and this and other editors have agreed with you many times.  I agree and have composed a list of how many times a new outline was proposedand a detailed draft was proposed by the editor you mentioned.  I thought it was only three by I now see it is many more times than that.  I agree with the fact that some material has to be eventually be removed and that the article is too long that is why I proposed that you and other editors who worked very hard on the article should voice their consensus.  At some point this editor should either produced what has been promised numerous times, or speak no more about it. Mugginsx (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We are all volunteers here. I actually have been spending 2 hours a day for last 4-5 days going through to - as I said above - create my own timeline from actual sources in order to understand what is in fact the most important prosecution and defense evidence, as opposed to just presenting a hodgepodge of what various people passing by might have thought was important in some impromptu edit or other. For example, I've found at least two dozen pre-trial releases of a number of pieces of evidence, including document dumps. While I haven't compared them to the few mentioned in the article, something tells me they are not necessary the most significant ones, just the ones that someone happened to find in some article. Please don't act like doing good research is a crime :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Crohnie has the same issue all of us have had with Carol -- starting new sections that are asking or saying the same things with a different twist to them, trying to get her way, when some of these things have already been settled. You shouldn't let that drive you away, Crohnie. Just ignore it. Unlike, Mugginsx, I am not waiting for her draft, because, per her statements on it (including the outline), I already know that I will disagree with most of it. The article is not too long, however, per WP:SIZE. It only looks that way, due to all the subheadings. Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)