User:TachyonJack/brainstorming


 * opening and closing
 * independant of systems of orginization
 * included with whatever other system I come up with


 * how to organize
 * chronologically
 * week one
 * text
 * week two
 * text
 * week three
 * text
 * by part of trial
 * organized by witness
 * evans
 * direct examination
 * cross examination
 * Pelt
 * direct examination
 * cross examination
 * etc.
 * organized by part
 * direct examination
 * Evans
 * Pelt
 * cross examination
 * Evans (by irving)
 * Pelt (by irving)
 * Irving (by rampton)
 * organized by side
 * claimant
 * opening
 * cross examination of witnesses
 * pelt
 * evans
 * cross examination by rampton
 * direct examination of witnesses
 * Watt
 * Keegan
 * that evolutionary historian (forgot his name)
 * closing
 * defense
 * opening
 * direct of witnesses
 * Evans
 * Pelt
 * cross of witnesses
 * Irving
 * other claimant witnesses (watt keegan, etc.)
 * closing
 * organized by general routine
 * openings?
 * define routine
 * defense direct of witness
 * irving cross of witness
 * rampton cross of irving
 * routine applied to each witness
 * Evans
 * Pelt
 * closings?
 * by subject (note that these divisions could substitute for any division by witness)
 * divided in half (the trial itself was divided along these half's)
 * Aushwitz
 * Everything Else (basically all about irving)
 * divided in three (according to the defense strategy)
 * Aushwitz (showing that no reasonable historian would have cause for doubt, implying irving is not a reasonable historian) (done by Pelt Browning and Longerich)
 * Irving's political associations (done by funke)
 * Evidence of Irving deilberately manipulating the historical record (done by evans)
 * divided in 5 (according to the distinct defamatory claims that Lipstadt's statements were divided into by the judge)
 * what to do with ruling section?
 * get rid of the ruling section, and append the findings the judge made about each of these claims onto its particular section
 * keep the ruling section
 * how this division would look
 * defamatory claim
 * evidence provided by defense
 * evidence provided by claimant (or perhaps condense these two into one)
 * judges ruling (if in fact I decide to put it there)
 * next defamatory claim
 * evidence provided by defense
 * evidence provided by claimant (or perhaps condense these two into one)
 * judges ruling (if in fact I decide to put it there)
 * etc.


 * how much stuff should be included
 * how much evidence should I include
 * how much of the proceedings should I report
 * how much of the atmosphere (for instance the reporters and spectators) should I describe
 * do i even need a section on the trial?
 * what about the reports? should i include some of their contents?
 * is this ultimately about the trial itself or about presenting evidence for the holocaust
 * to what extent should i model,say, other featured articles about law cases
 * they all seem to be, shall i say, less detailed, less involved
 * is that just because of the cases they are describing
 * should I myself be modelling those articles?