Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Question about Krystal Holloway

I saw this on the BLPN, but I wasn't sure what the issue was. It was to do whether she testified in court that George said: "It was an accident that snowballed out of control," or "I believe it was an accident that snowballed out of control."

The issue isn't included in the article at all; I can't even find Holloway's name in the article. Do we know which version she said, and is there a link to where she said it, with the time? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: The issue of Krystal Holloway has been a contentious issue for some time. In July, CarolMooredc inserted this paragraph into the article about Krystal Hollway. It is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=440151937&oldid=440149325 It read as follows: The defense called Krystal Holloway, a volunteer in the search for Caylee, who claimed that she had an affair with George Anthony and that he described the death as "an accident that snowballed out of control". George Anthony denied the affair and ever making the statement.

If you listened to the trial, and I believe you said you did, you will realize that Krystal actually goes back and forth with the key statement. She was a Defense witness so Baez went first. During that questioning by Baez, Krystal states: "George said: "it was an accident that snowballed out of control". Then Ashton from the Prosecution asks her and she goes back and forth until Ashton gives her her prior sworn statement given to the authorities. She then breaks down and finally admits that what George said was that "He thought it was an accident that snowballed out of contro." She also denied being his mistress to the police under sworn testimony and stated she was his mistress in court. In other words she "recanted" her testimony. http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/recant.html At that point, the judge threw out her testimony as "prior inconsistent statements" and told the jury to ignore almost all of her testimony. The actual “recanting by Ms. Holloway” can specifically be found at http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ As to George's statement about the death of Caylee, it can be found at Tape #4 beginning at 7:30 and continues to the last tape (#7). You must watch to the end of the tape (#7). Holloway is also impeached on her prior statements at trial to Baez that she was his mistress and whether George thought she was married, but what is important are her criminal accusation that George Anthony "knew about the crime of Caylee's death". They were all recanted and all considered prior inconsistent statements. All total, she had lied three times before finally admitting the truth when forced to read her sworn statement, so the Judge threw out all of her testimony.

I tried at great length to discuss to CarolMooredc that as she has edited it, it was factually inaccurate and a major WP:BLP issue since it accuses George Anthony, a living person, of covering up a murder. I even rehabiliated the paragraph for her to make it accurate but she refused to accept it so I took it all out which is what an editor is supposed to do with a BLP violation. The entire discussion is at Archive 6 under section: Krystal Holloway. As of last night she stated on the noticeboard that she still had not listened to the trial tapes and did not believe it and that her printed sources were better. Since the newspaper have slanted the story, the trial tapes are the main source and maybe the only source, though I am still looking for another. Mugginsx (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Muggins, could you link directly to the part where Holloway says George said: "I thought it was an accident ..." etc (thought, not was)? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx mis-states the case as usual. After he pointed out that she had changed her statement, I remembered he was correct and dropped the matter, at least until further investigation. (Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_6#Krystal_Holloway: I wrote: "I did forget that back and forth and the judge dismissing the testimony. ")

However, a couple weeks later I discovered one (and later two more) WP:RS said the judge said the below.

• Central FL News 13: After Holloway left the courtroom, Perry instructed the jury that it should only use the witness' testimony regarding George's statements to her to discern whether or not they believe George's previous testimony, and not as a basis for their verdict for Casey.
• This WP:RS KVIA (ABC/CNN report): After Holloway's testimony, Perry told jurors her testimony may be used to impeach George Anthony's credibility, but told them that her testimony is not proof of how Caylee died and is not evidence of Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence.
• And Toronto Sun/Reuters]: Over Baez's objection, Perry instructed jurors to consider Holloway's testimony only in terms of how they feel it reflects on George's credibility, and not consider it as evidence of how Caylee died.

Mugginsx refused intially to give us the time stamp, and then when I realize he was actually countering what 3 WP:RS said the judge ruled and asked for him to transcribe the sentence or two of what Perry said, he refused to do that. My sound on computer has been down for a week and I haven't had time/ability to get on roommate's computer to go through and verify that Mugginsx is right and 3 WP:RS are wrong. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've listened to Holloway #7 at youtube URL. Judge Perry doesn't tell the jury anything about what they should do about her testimony here. I then searched youtube and couldn’t find the specific point - either right after her testimony or during jury instructions – when Perry told jurors exactly how they were allowed to use Holloway’s statements. I did find final written jury instructions here but they do not mention Holloway specifically.

So unless Mugginsx can find that the judge’s instructions are different from the three high quality WP:RS above, obviously Holloway remains relevant and belongs in the article. (Again, I am not contesting the obvious point made in WP:RS that there are inconsistencies in her statements, for whatever reason, and that made it impossible for the jury to use her testimony to decide if it the death was an accident. ) So Holloway's testimony is relevant to the trial and a short paragraph needs to be included. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is what did Krystal say (during the trial) that George told her. My recollection is she said (during the trial) that he told her: "It was an accident that snowballed out control," and I have found the video and timestamp for that (00:33 mins and 01:58 mins). Muggins says Krystal later (also during the trial) changed that to "he said he believed it was an accident that snowballed out of control." So we need a video and timestamp of her changing that. Either way, it should definitely be in the article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The big issue is Krystal's credibility in saying under oath they had an affair (including from his text message saying "I need you in my life") versus George denying it under oath. Here's one of many stories on the matter. If the judge thought she was down right lying about which was the more accurate "snowballed out of control" statement - as opposed to being forgetful/confused/etc. - I doubt he would have allowed her testimony to be considered at all.

Again, we do not have to rely on video as our first and foremost source. It's just a matter of deciding which of many sources is most accurate. If there are massive conflicts among them, then it's fine to look at video. And it's fine to include a link for people who want to see testimony, but that's true of all the witnesses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, OK I am back online - has some trouble with my computer. Since Ms Holloway goes back and forth with her recantation, you really have to start at Tape 4 beginning at 7:30 and continue to the last tape (#7). The tapes are not long in duration and are found here in total. http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/

Also Carol's link refutes her own statements above. http://www.kvia.com/news/28403325/detail.html paragraph 40 states:

Ashton asked her to read her statement, and asked her if it wasn't true that George Anthony made it clear he had no firsthand knowledge of what happened to Caylee. She admitted that was true. There is the admission of the racantation in her own printed source.

As to Judge's instruction concerning Ms. Holloway's testimony, it is misstated by Carol but not, once again by Carol's own source It states:

After Holloway's testimony, Perry told jurors that Holloway's testimony may be used only to impeach George Anthony's credibility, but told them that her testimony is not proof of how Caylee died and is not evidence of Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence. Mugginsx (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The above is exactly what I have said more times than I can possibly remember. Why is it you cannot remember that and keep making the same false claim? Did you read all those sources I provided above? In case you didn't, here they are again:

• Central FL News 13: After Holloway left the courtroom, Perry instructed the jury that it should only use the witness' testimony regarding George's statements to her to discern whether or not they believe George's previous testimony, and not as a basis for their verdict for Casey.
• This WP:RS KVIA (ABC/CNN report): After Holloway's testimony, Perry told jurors her testimony may be used to impeach George Anthony's credibility, but told them that her testimony is not proof of how Caylee died and is not evidence of Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence.
• And Toronto Sun/Reuters]: Over Baez's objection, Perry instructed jurors to consider Holloway's testimony only in terms of how they feel it reflects on George's credibility, and not consider it as evidence of how Caylee died.

I believe your hostility towards me has made it impossible for you to be rational on this article. I don't know what the remedy for this kind of disruptive editing is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Muggins, we would need a timestamp of her recanting or changing it. She may go back and forth, but if she changed her description of what he said, it will be on the video, and we need a timestamp to take us to that point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Ok. I am on my way to Radio Shak will be back shorty then listen and give you exact timestamp. First, my computer went down last night and now it is the metal tip on my headphone cord. Mugginsx (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no rush, so don't worry. Just so long as we have a timestamp at some point. The reporting of this case was very poor by several news organizations, so it makes sense to use the trial videos as far as possible, and also to find one good print source and stick to it throughout, e.g. Reuters. There will be books out soon about the trial, which will make editing this article a lot easier. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. $10.00 poorer but that's OK (smile). It is at tape five at .43 seconds into that tape. Ashton give her her sworn statement, and asks her to read it. she states: "George said: 'I really believe it was an accident and it just went wrong and she tried to cover it up.' " That is the essential recant. She trieds to go back and forth and then says it again (not reading from the sworn statement this time, adding the word "snowballed". Ashton thens asks: "But George never said that he knew for a fact that it was an accident". She said No. Mugginsx (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Muggins. I've found a Reuters report about it, where she apparently told Ashton that George said: "I really believe that it was an accident, and it just went wrong and she tried to cover it up." [1] Do you have a link to where she said this at 00:43 mins? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is at http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ starting at Tape 5. Mugginsx (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

She did not recant. Watch her testimony in response to Ashton here from the start. She sticks with: "It was an accident that snowballed out of control." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. She may have forgotten or gotten confused at different times about whether he said he knew it, believed it, was told it, but she was quite certain he said "It was an accident that snowballed out of control." CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - She does, she really does. She goes back and forth changing the testimony except at the point that she reads her sworn statement and then the correct version. She then argues with Aston that ABOVE that statement she made another statement which included the word "snowballed". She argues with him but the significant difference is that when reading her "sworn statement" the sentence she states exonerates George because she states that George said "He thought it was accident.............................

in other words George was just giving his opinion to Krystal as to what he thought happened. (If he knew then he would be guilty of covering up an accidental death or murder - both a serious crime) Ashton backs it up with making her admit that "George never said that he knew.......... Another reason you know she recanted is in Carol own's source This WP:RS KVIA (ABC/CNN report) above which states: Ashton asked her to read her statement, and asked her if it wasn't true that George Anthony made it clear he had no firsthand knowledge of what happened to Caylee. She admitted that was true. If she had not changed her testimony, the judge would not have instructed the jury to disregard most of her testimony.

The difference is this: First she says George said: It was an accident ........... (as if he had prior knowledge) the second is that she states: George said HE THOUGHT it was an accident .................... no prior knowledge on George's part (no crime of covering up an accidental death or murder)- He is just supposing what his daughter did. The exchange during her testimony is very contentious and goes back and forth but the important thing is how she reads her sworn statement to the police. If she had not told the truth at that minute in court, she would have been charged with the same thing Casey was charged with: lying under oath to law enforcement. That is why I said you really need to listen from Tape 5 on. You will have to trust me on this because this is one thing that I really know about. I have been at these kinds of trials, done criminal paralegal work, looked at sworn statements, listened to contentious testimony Those tapes at my source http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ starting at Tape 5. are complete and uninterrupted testimony, then please look Carol's own printed source above as well. Mugginsx (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem initially was that Carol put the incriminating statement into the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=440151937&oldid=440149325 and would not change it. As long as she puts the paragraph in the way her own source states ("He said he thought it was probably an accident that went wrong" which also reflects her sworn police statement it will be factually accurate and I would have no objectionas as a WP:BLP violation.Mugginsx (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Draft of Krystal Holloway paragraph(s)

Below is a first draft of what I think the Krystal Holloway single paragraph should look like. (Or it could be two if you want George to have his own; whichever.) I unhid refs and separated sentences with different refs for easier reading. In the first paragraph I used two refs together because they have info which while not identical complement each other. I can of course separate which article says which thing if people prefer. Anyway, this version comports with what I remember and even perhaps what Mugginsx has described, though I don't see anyone using the word "recant" and I think doing so would be WP:OR. And I've included the video links for those who want to cross check.

The defense called Krystal Holloway, a volunteer in the search for Caylee, who stated that she had an affair with George Anthony, he had been to her home and that he had texted to her "Just thinking about you. I need you in my life." She told the defense that George Anthony stated "it was an accident that snowballed out of control". Under cross-examination by prosecutors she agreed with her initial police statement that Anthony also told her, "I really believe that it was an accident that just went wrong and (Casey Anthony) tried to cover it up." She said he had not told her he was present when the alleged accident occurred. REF:Ashley Hayes, Defense Rests In Casey Anthony Trial, CNN via KVIA, June 29, 2011. REF:Barbara Liston, Casey Anthony won't testify, Reuters, June 30, 2011.

During redirect examination, Baez asked Holloway if Anthony told her Caylee was dead while stating publicly she was missing, and she said yes.REF:Day 32: Defense rests, Casey Anthony won't testify, Central Florida News 13, June 30, 2011.

After Holloway's testimony, Judge Perry told jurors her testimony may be used to impeach George Anthony's credibility, but that it ws not proof of how Caylee died or evidence of Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence. In his testimony George Anthony denied the affair and said he only visited her when she was ill.REF: Hayes again

He stated he sent the text message because he needed everyone who had helped in his life.REF:CRNEWSDay 32 again

Judge Perry told jurors that Holloway’s testimony could be used to impeach George Anthony's credibility, but that it was not proof of how Caylee died and or evidence of Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence.REF: Hayes again REF: Compilation of short Youtube videos of Krystal Holloway’s complete testimony.

Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me with one small exception - as to sentence about redirect by Baez. I will withhold comment on that sentence until I re-listen to that particular testimony of the redirect. Rest looks fine and factually accurate. Mugginsx (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I've tried a rewrite of the lead, so that it acts as a stand-alone summary of the key points, per WP:LEAD. It means it's longer than the previous one, but I think not too long. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Current (SV)

Previous

Caylee Marie Anthony (August 9, 2005 – June 16, 2008) was reported missing in Orlando, Florida by her grandmother in July 2008, shortly before her third birthday. Her remains were found in a wooded area near her home in December 2008. The televised trial in 2011 of her 22-year-old mother, Casey Anthony, on charges of first degree murder was described by Time magazine as "the social media trial of the century." Caylee was reported missing by her maternal grandmother, Cindy Anthony, on July 15, 2008. The grandmother told police she had not seen the child for 31 days. Although the mother and child lived with the grandparents, the grandmother said Casey had taken the child away for a few weeks, on what was variously described as a business trip or holiday. It was only on July 15, she said, that Casey admitted she had also not seen her daughter for weeks. The grandmother reported the child missing to police, and said Casey's car smelled as though there had been a dead body inside it. Casey at first told police the child had been kidnapped by her nanny on June 9, and that she had spent the time since then trying to find her, too frightened to alert the authorities. It was soon discovered that the child had no nanny. This became one of a series of stories Casey was forced to acknowledge she had invented. With the child still missing, Casey was charged with first degree murder in October, and pleaded not guilty. Two months later, on December 11, the child's skeletal remains were found in a wooded area near the family home, wrapped in a blanket, and hidden inside a laundry bag and garbage bag. The police said there was duct tape attached to the skull, which the prosecution later said had been wrapped around the child's nose and mouth before she died, making it the murder weapon. The prosecution, led by John Ashton, sought the death penalty. The trial lasted six weeks, from May to July 2011. The prosecution charged that Casey had murdered her daughter by administering chloroform, then applying the duct tape, and that she had done so because she wanted her freedom. The defense team, led by Jose Baez, countered that the child had drowned accidentally in the family's swimming pool on June 16, 2008, and that Casey had lied about this and other issues because of a dysfunctional upbringing, which included her father sexually abusing her. Casey declined to take the stand, and no evidence was presented to support the defense's allegations, or to explain the abandonment of the child's remains. The defense sought to raise doubts about the integrity of the prosecution case—particularly its forensic evidence—and on July 5 the jury found Casey not guilty of murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, but guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. With credit for time served, she was released on July 17, 2011. The verdict was greeted with public outrage, and was both defended and attacked by media and legal commentators. Several complained that the jury had misunderstood the meaning of "reasonable doubt," while others said the prosecution had relied too heavily on the defendant's allegedly poor moral character, because it had been unable to show conclusively how the victim had died.

The disappearance and death of Caylee Anthony, a young child from Orlando, Florida, received significant media attention in the United States. The subsequent trial of her mother, Casey Anthony (born March 19, 1986), on charges of murder drew even greater coverage in national, international and social media. Caylee Marie Anthony (born August 9, 2005) was reported missing by her grandmother, Cindy Anthony, on July 15, 2008. Casey Anthony was indicted on charges of first degree murder and pled not guilty, on October 14, 2008. Caylee's skeletal remains were discovered in a wooded area near the family home on December 11, 2008. The prosecution sought the death penalty and the trial lasted for six weeks. On July 5, 2011, the jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, but guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. Anthony received consecutive sentences of one year in jail and a $1000 fine for each count, the maximum punishment possible. With credit for time served and good behavior, she was released on July 17, 2011. In the United States, the case was called "one of the biggest ratings draws in recent memory" and "the social media trial of the century". Defense counsel charged that Anthony was being tried in the media to her great detriment while she was facing the death penalty. The case has been cited as an example of the unfairness of prejudicial pretrial publicity with the potential for impacting the rights of defendants in the United States.

Just my initial reaction...excellent effort. In general: great job at capturing detail, I don't mind detail but others have spoken up on length. Getting picky: the phrase "31 days" likes to show up. Getting picky again: the media is mentioned at the very beginning and seems to be referenced again at the end. Getting picky one last time: I need to think more about the phrases "damaged personality" and "dysfunctional upbringing" as Baez suggested in opening statements that her family was different and therefore Casey was different ("it's not what happened but who it happened to"), so I'm undecided. Overall: Excellent. Looking good. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 07:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's hard to write it and include enough detail to make it accurate, but not so much that it becomes confusing. I'll maybe take a break and try to tighten/tweak it a bit more later. I'm also not keen on the first sentence focusing on the media.SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes excellent job. One last thought..."...she wanted her freedom". Hmmm would it be just "freedom" or rather "personal freedom"? I'm too picky perhaps, but still, very nice. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 07:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I felt "she wanted her freedom" was the most succinct way of expressing the prosecution's point about motive. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - I'm not clear on your reasons for reverting my edits to the lead. For example, "important to put it this way because it was contested" and "some of the edits had changed the meaning". In attempting to streamline the lead a bit, I was careful not to change the meaning of anything, and I'm pretty sure I didn't, so I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your reasons. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the changes of meaning were here, where you stated as a fact the police had found duct tape, but that is contested (and starting with a long subordinate clause seemed odd), and here where you wrote "this story was false" (that the child had been kidnapped by the nanny), whereas it was worse than that, because the child did not even have a nanny. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point now - "police said X happened" is better than "X happened". Shirtwaist ☎ 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

One little factoid that needs to be changed, at least after it's inserted and referenced here: "The police said there was duct tape attached to the skull..." Actually the medical examiner said later too. (Also a couple defense witnesses made it clear that was not most likely scenario. Will provide actual refs if you want to use them when back at my own computer with my draft of outline which still tweaking.) Don't have much of an opinion on others' comments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ThisLaughingGuyRightHere, it looks excellent. Mugginsx (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead is definitely good for expansion, since this is not a small article. However, I prefer more emphasis on the trial's societal impact than simply "was described by Time magazine as 'the social media trial of the century,'" especially since it made international news as well. Time isn't even the only source to call it that. And though I also prefer societal impact information to come last in leads, I don't mind the new lead. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have some concerns about the lead and intro:

1. The first paragraph should mention her acquittal. That was the ultimate outcome. I would suggest the second sentence be changed to: "Her 22-year-old mother, Casey Anthony, was acquitted of first degree murder but convicted of lying to police officers in a 2011 televised trial that was described by Time magazine as "the social media trial of the century.""
2. I would change "The police said there was duct tape attached to the skull, which the prosecution later said had been wrapped around the child's nose and mouth before she died, making it the murder weapon." to "The police reported there was duct tape attached to the skull, which the prosecution later alleged had been wrapped around the child's nose and mouth before she died, making it the murder weapon."
3. I have two problems with: "Casey chose not to take the stand, and no evidence was presented to support the defense's allegations, or to explain the abandonment of the child's remains." First the word "chose" suggests that not testifying was a some unusual decision on her part when almost certainly she was strongly advised by counsel not to, as is common in such cases. I would prefer simply "Casey did not testify." or "Casey exercised her constitutional right not to testify." The second part of the sentence is dubious, as according to later parts of the article the defense "showed jurors a photograph of Caylee opening the home's sliding glass door by herself. He stressed that there were no child safety locks in the home and that both of Casey Anthony's parents, George and Cindy Anthony, testified that Caylee could get out of the house easily." Also to call out what evidence the defense did not provide seems to be making an editorial comment, that somehow they should have had to provide such evidence. If anything the lede should be mentioning the evidence the prosecution failed to provide, as that is what apparently concerned the jury. I think it best not to comment on absent evidence. --agr (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold makes excellent points, especially regarding "no evidence" presented by the defense. (He had a few in there that I missed too!) Another example is their debunking of the duct tape theory. It should not be mention in the lead without alluding to multiple defense points against that theory. Various facts and opinions defense brought out are:

• Investigators admitted that duct tape that appeared to be on the face could have shifted position as he collected remains.CFNEWS 13
• Medical examiner admitted she didn’t know how the child died.www.news-journalonline
• An FBI forensic document examiner found no evidence of a sticker or sticker residue on the duct tape found near the remains.CFNEWS 13
• Dr. Werner Spitz believes the duct tape was placed on the skull after decomposition and that the crime scene photos of the position of the hair on the skull was staged, possibly by the medical examiner.CFNEWs13
• The FBI forensics expert said the duct tape at the crime scene was dissimilar to that in Anthony home CFNEWS 13
• Cindy said in burying her pets duct tape was used to keep the plastic bags from opening.CFNEWS 13

More lists of facts debunking the prosecution case on every point will be coming and need to be put in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit per above comments. Hopefully, the accuracy, NPOV and BLP concerns behind most of the cleanup will be respected. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to discuss this revert to those changes because some of the changes were premature, especially without Krystal Holloway info finalized and without the article fully reflecting just how much the defense damaged the prosecution case. The above on duct tape is just an example. So I'm going to try to stay away from this article until I get all that in order, including a draft my revised version of prosecution/defense section above at Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony#Fewer_sections_on_prosecution.2Fdefense. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing references and lines

SlimVirgin, why would you remove all the references for this line? I can understand removing most. But all? Are you not aware that some editors would ask for a reference or two for that line? Plenty of editors would tag that line as needing attribution...without reading on to see how the case has been compared to the O. J. Simpson murder case. It's not "uncontentious" to them. They would want references immediately supporting the wording "for its widespread media attention and reported 'shock' at the 'Not Guilty' verdict." In fact, it was tagged by one editor even with all those references, because that editor felt I should specify who has compared it to the O. J. case in this way. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 124#Citations vs. attributions. The outside editors, with the exception of two, were on my side about the wording and ref stacking, because it's not just one person who has compared the case that way. Therefore, attributing it to only one person would be misrepresentation. And we certainly cannot, should not, name all the people who have compared the case that way. The references make that point for us without having to name all these individuals. Again, I understand that I had "ref overkill" going on there. But to remove all the references supporting that line?

And as for this edit, how is it redundant to mention the fact that "Outside the courthouse, many in the crowd of 500 reacted with anger, chanting, 'Justice for Caylee! and 'Baby killer!'"? That's not anywhere else in that section or before it. Likewise, I'm not completely understanding your changing "and various media personalities and celebrities, including, Joy Behar, Star Jones, Roseanne Barr, Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher, Jason Biggs, Sharon Osbourne and Kim Kardashian, also expressed outrage via Twitter." to "and several media personalities expressed outrage via Twitter." That is downplaying the information because it's not just "several." I understand removing all the names, but you could have easily reworded it to "and various media personalities and celebrities," while leaving at least two or three references in, because that is more accurate. And on that note, that is what I will be changing it to, with at least two of the references you removed.

Lastly, I'm not understanding your removal of "people in good conscience could not sentence Anthony to death based on circumstantial evidence when reasonable doubt existed." It was explaining why "A number of media commentators believe that the prosecution overcharged the case by tagging on the death penalty."

I also ask that you and others be careful when removing references that are being used for more than one statement in the article. Yes, AnomieBOT can clean up after us, but AnomieBOT does not always do that and then we are left with references that don't work. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I added back three references to the O. J. line above, because I know it will eventually be tagged as unsourced otherwise. I also fixed "the several media personalities" part, as I stated I would. The information about the crowd of 500 reacting with anger outside the courthouse should also be readded, but I'm waiting for you to explain why you removed it. I don't mind if the fact that the crowd chanted "Justice for Caylee! and Baby killer!" are excluded, but that there was 500 people or so outside that courthouse protesting the verdict should be included. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the article is about the death of Caylee Anthony and not the media reaction to the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial, the whole section is overly long and overly referenced. Two different references to OJ? (One ref'd with three refs; one where the ref not clear.) List of celebrities who tweet against the verdict? As for number of refs, it often is possible to pick out one ref that summarizes the point sufficiently. Two usually is enough, unless this is a factoid someone will contest, and this isn't too controversial. For example, multiple refs will be needed regarding defense questioning, witness testimony, that debunks the prosecution, since that we know will be challenged when it starts getting put in. I think your reverts were too soon, without sufficient discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This article has remained titled the Death of Caylee Anthony because editors felt/feel it best expresses BOTH the death of Caylee Anthony and her mother's trial. Per what I stated above, refer to the following discussions: Changing article title to "Casey Anthony trial and RfC: Should the name of the article be changed to "Casey Anthony trial'?. Editors interpreted the Casey Anthony trial title too narrowly. And just just like them, you interpret the "Death of Caylee Anthony" title too narrowly. As I stated then, "The two topics are intricately and substantially linked. There is no way to discuss the death without discussing the trial and impact that had on society, and there is no way to discuss the trial without discussing the child's death and impact that had on society." Responses to the verdict have everything to do with the "death of Caylee Anthony." If they did not, I doubt you or SlimVirgin would have proposed an entire section devoted to it. The only difference in my version and the both of yours is that you divide the media information up into unneeded subsection headings and place undue weight on the responses to the verdict. The section, as currently is, isn't even only about the verdict. And at seven paragraphs long, how is the whole section "overly long"? Just because you and two other editors prefer to keep sections three paragraphs long, even though most sections in Wikipedia articles are not limited to that number? Exactly why should it be cut down when other sections on Wikipedia about a subject that has received widespread public and media attention is just as long, if not longer, and when it is going over different aspects of the case's impact instead of the same thing repeatedly? And with the many examples I can list of impact/reaction sections being that long or much longer, you cannot provide any good reason for downsizing or splitting it up into unnecessary subheadings.

None of the references I attributed to the line are ambiguous. And saying "two references usually is enough" is your opinion. And even so, my point is that SlimVirgin removed all the references attributed to that line. As I stated in my edit summary: "Don't ever underestimate editors who will stick a citation tag for something that is already cited if they would just read a bit further. I've seen it too many times and it's better to be safe than to face that." SlimVirgin could have left two or three in. There didn't have to be "sufficient discussion" to add back a few references and make lines more accurate. The line "and various media personalities and celebrities" is more accurate than "and several media personalities," and I already explained why that is above. I didn't revert SlimVirgin on anything controversial and didn't revert completely either, as can be seen above. So if SlimVirgin edit wars over this, it is silly. The section cannot even be called "over-referenced" anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether the article is about the death or the trial, room must be made for all the evidence that is not described, as well as the challenges to that evidence, so people have to start thinking in terms of what existing material has to go, preferably sooner rather than later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of room in this article. I once again point to WP:SIZE. Beside that fact, Wikipedia articles never "run out of room," and there are articles much, much longer than this one on Wikipedia. I will point to September 11 attacks again. There is nothing in the Public and media reactions that "has to go." If there were anything trivial in it, I would understand your point better. But there is not. And, again, it is only seven paragraphs long, not much longer than other sections in this article, and unless we go by SlimVirgin's suggestion to split information into "bite-size" chunks, there will be more than just two or three sections about that length. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Instead of "making room" (ie removing what you don't like) because you say it should go, simply add your evidence that is yet not described. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 05:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, the article is so over-referenced that it's hard to read (which of the several refs after a sentence is the pertinent one?) and slow to load (too many citation templates, making diffs and preview horribly slow). At most there should be one set of refs tags after each sentence, and even that is rarely necessary.

Also, there's no point in using random sources the way the article does, because the media coverage of the case was generally quite inaccurate, so it's important to identify key reliable sources and stick with them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may comment, actually, I think such removal is under-referencing. In the sample articles you mentioned I see entire paragraphs that only have a single reference. In something like this where there is contentious material, it's important to acknowledge "who said what" just as you have pointed out. Also...just as I predicted...we are starting a debate on what is a WP:RS and what isn't...so then we can pick which ones favor a particular view. Sticking to just one or two sources can result in a narrowly viewed article. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 06:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't write an article like this by doing random Google searches and stuffing it full of factoids from any old place, from whatever source you happen to find, knowledgeable or not. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Slim, I know you don't prefer reference templates because you feel that they make the article open slower. We first discussed this at the Vegetarianism article. Remember this discussion? I believe that's the first time we talked, but I could be wrong. I've always remembered you from that discussion because I have since agreed that citation templates cause articles to open slower. However, I still prefer citation templates, and it's apparent that most of Wikipedia does as well. As for this article, I understand your point, but I still feel that you shouldn't have left that line bare. The above linked debate about that line shows that leaving it bare would not have been any better. And, yes, while per template documentation, a citation is not needed for every sentence - every paragraph would be better - most editors often don't follow this. They get "citation tag"-happy, overlooking that the statements are already sourced at the bottom of the paragraphs. This is one reason I feel much better about having some lines sourced, even if sourced at the bottom of the paragraph. The section isn't over-referenced anymore, since your edits to it, and I left a few references at the end of two lines I feel they are needed at. And I course explained about the accuracy of the "the several media personalities" line.

As for everything else, I'm not understanding what you mean by "the media coverage of the case was generally quite inaccurate." Everything in the section about the public and media's response is accurate, for example. If you mean what they reported on evidence, etc., that is another matter, but I'd still prefer you clarify. I wasn't even aware that you were familiar with this case before being asked to weigh in here about it. Did you only recently hear about it?

Anyway, about the "500 reacting with anger outside the courthouse" line, or the ""people in good conscience could not sentence Anthony to death based on circumstantial evidence when reasonable doubt existed." line. Do you have a problem with either (or both) of those being added back, as long as they are reworded? Flyer22 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Writing

LaughinGuy, you're adding errors and odd phrasing. Wikipedia doesn't use "hadn't," for example; see MoS. And she fabricated the stories, which is not quite the same as "conceived," etc.

The article can't be well-written with this back and forth. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm correcting errors and proper phrasing. Conceived is more accurate than invention, because this is referring to a conceptual process. Also, it did not "become" a story on this day because you wrote it as such, it was a story the instant it was conceived in the mind of Casey. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 06:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"It became one of a series of stories she was forced to acknowledge she had fabricated." If you read the sentence, you'll see what "became" refers to.

But regardless, I can't do writing by numbers like this, sorry, it's just impossible. I'll leave you to it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I returned it, so as to tell an unfolding story. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 06:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

DCF Report

I just saw this in the news...the Florida Department of Children and Families has released their 3-year investigative report on the case and conclude that Casey's "...actions or lack of actions...resulted or contributed to the death of the child". I guess the DCF isn't a law enforcement agency so they can't file any (more) charges against Casey. Anybody else heard of this report? What do you think? ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 00:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

edit 1: I found the report: http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-08/272204480-11143144.pdf

Also, I found an article about it: at the Orlando Sentinel ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 04:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not? I think it is certainly within the scope of the article. Mugginsx (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think it relates to the death of Caylee and thus is within the scope. If there are no objections then I guess it could be added towards the end of the article, sticking with chrono order, since it was recently released. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 06:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is most relevant to the death of caylee anthony. It is presented by a State Agency who is legally empowered to do these kinds of investigations and make these kinds of statements. It is solid. Mugginsx (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there one editor here editing under two different usernames?

Just wondering. How does one check this?Mugginsx (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are you speaking of? And, yes, WP:CheckUser is for checking this. But you'd have to present convincing evidence that one account is a WP:SOCKPUPPET of another account in order to be granted a checkuser run. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm fascinating...indeed. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 18:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Since no one replied, deleting my little joke. But seriously folks, if one suspects WP:Sockpuppet one uses proper processes. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Handling_suspected_sock_puppets. Bringing up vague accusations that has everybody looking at everybody else does taint the atmosphere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I say we run the SecretUser thing and ferret out this fraudster to expose the double agent. You can run but you can't hide, sock puppet, we will find you. Someone can post the results when we find them. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 08:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, ThisLaughingGuyRightHere, it doesn't work that way. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This makes me want to put my RAOTFL (or however you write that) joke back in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

DCF Report

This report is NOT ANTHONY FAMILY TRIVIA likened to jailhouse visits and the Dr. Phil show. It is a verdict of a kind on the Death of Caylee Anthony - the very title of this article. It belongs below the Criminal Verdict because it is a Verdict in itself. The DCF Dept of Children and Families is an extremely powerful State Agency which is able to remove children from the homes of their natural parents. This agency holds special and great powers given to them by the State of Florida. It is a report which will follow Caylee's mother for the rest of her life and for one thing, will preclude her from ever adopting a child, having a child care facility, teaching small children, being a licensed nanny. It has many legal ramifications and I repeat, is NOT TRIVIAL OR TRIVIA. Mugginsx (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You can take up the position with whoever moved it. I don't have a problem with it being there IF it includes the information which I put back about the legal implications AND both refs are at the end because all info comes from that one ref and the Primary Source report should go after it for those who want to read further:

In August, 2011 the Florida Department of Children and Families released a report based on a three-year investigation into the disappearance and death of Caylee Anthony. It concluded that Casey Anthony failed to protect Caylee, and that Casey's actions or lack of actions resulted in the death of the child. It would have no legal consequences for Anthony, however, except possibly if she were to have a complaint filed against her in Florida regarding a future child.REF:Walter Pacheco (August 11, 2011). "Casey Anthony's 'failure to protect' contributed to Caylee's death, DCF says". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved August 21, 2011. REF:"Review of Child Death" (PDF). Florida Department of Children and Families. August 10, 2011. Retrieved August 21, 2011.

It is both misleading and against WP:BLP to not include the info on legal consequences. Only having it in there makes it possible to justify putting it in this section at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with your wording "It would have no legal consequences for Anthony, however, except possibly if she were to have a complaint filed against her in Florida regarding a future child." There is no law that a person cannot have a natural child, even if they are Andrea Yates or Susan Smith. But there are laws for the legal adoption of child and there are laws for having a child care facility or for being a certified "nanny" or being a licensed teacher for small children. That was my point. I have no problem with the fact that she can have a natural child. That is true. http://centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/kb/resource/Child%20and%20Family%20Services%205%20Year%20Plan%202010%20-%202014.pdf

I corrected the info per the actual source, including that it was not a criminal investigation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. In theory it is a criminal investigation, but since, in Casey case, there "findings" could not be "criminally" prosecuted because there is no "law" stating it is a crime to NOT report your child missing. As you know, there is now a great effort to have that become law in all states, primarily as a result of this child. But the agency does have investigations which are used in criminal court. So, technically, there was nothing to do except produce a report which, although would not "put her in jail" (there is no law to fit the crime) the agency can use the report to prevent her from the other things I mentioned. It will be a matter of record for anyone who runs her through a check on her as a matter of business. So your wording is accurate. Did not see it all in what I cut and pasted. Most have taken a version before you added the information. Mugginsx (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. I didn't realize the full level of impact the report would have on Casey. I was looking at it from the view of the Investigation and how it related to the trial because the DCF, as it says in the source, worked with investigators (presumably Detective Melich) from the very beginning of the case. Also, it sounds like the DCF is the state equivalent to Child Protective Services (CPS). Furthermore, does anyone know if the Center for Missing and Exploited Children ever got involved with this case? ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

DCF is, the main agency, and CPS is the arm that goes out in the field locally. I had a neighbor that did that in Vero Beach area - very dangerous work taking kids out of their home. http://www.18884mydivorce.com/pub/Childcustody/child-protection-services.htm Mugginsx (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a poster that states its from National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. http://amomandherblog.com/caylee-anthonymissing-endangered-poster/

Problems with August 18 edits

Thus reverted or otherwise tweaked problems from Diff 1]

• The Reference Schneider is talking about evidence from the trial. Either sloppy to leave that factoid out - or trying to create some artificial difference between evidence and the trial. The number of witnesses at trial should be mentioned as well It is witnesses who present evidence, including their testimony. It is their credibility as well as the evidence credibility that is on the line. Thus putting back witnesses sentence. However, I did remove the dates of prosecution/defenses cases since people complained about it originally, it's not terribly relevant stuck in bottom and that was a bad compromise. Have meant to do that for a while.
• Inclusion of mention of the photo about the woman on chloroform an irrelevant fact that only put in there to somehow make Casey Anthony look guilty. Removal of Morales explanation he never discussed this topic with Anthony clear BLP violation. Either take the irrelevant factoid AND Morales explanation out or leave both in. There probably were some important photos presented. Why not research what they actually were using WP:RS??
• Removed Lundin, Leigh (June 5, 2011). "Casey Anthony Trial". Florida Crime News. Orlando: Criminal Brief. As other editor noted and changed, statement not even correct. Please find WP:RS that says that is most important piece of evidence. As for describing the evidence itself, it's not even done yet anywhere in article from a reliable source. Something I'm correcting in the timeline which almost done with, various family emergencies and events slowing down the process, but getting there. Then that info will be available for those who choose not to research their own WP:RS for info they want to put in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree as to putting the number of witnesses in.

As to the picture on Morales computer. It was very important as it actually exonerated Casey, if you had read the testimony correctly you would have known that. It does NOT appear on Casey's computer - it appears on Morales's computer. It was exculpatory evidence. As to its importance - what yours or mine or anyone else's PERSONAL opinions are, they are IMMATERIAL to this article. The truth as to what happened at trial is all that is IMPORTANT in this article.

As to Lundin, Leighh - I will have to check as to your comment about it's importance, but I will repeat the rule above as to what is or is not important: "...Yours or mine or anyone else's PERSONAL opinions are IMMATERIAL to this article. The truth as to what happened at trial is all that is IMPORTANT in this article. Please do not remove and dismantle every editors work in this article because YOU do not consider it important. That is WP:IDONTLIKEIT Mugginsx (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa for not checking the 2009 source of the first sentence of Morales to find out it does NOT references the assertion: "In 2009 (or May 26, 2011 obviously) many photos were entered into evidence, one from the computer of Ricardo Morales, an ex-boyfriend of Casey Anthony, which depicts a "joke" in which a man is using a chloroform-soaked rag to drug a woman." It does not document either that many photos were released or that that photo was released.) But since you are concerned about it I'll let you correct it.

Hmmm, I thought the complaint was I ADDED stuff back to Morales, not took it out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There are other important things to consider with the Links to Kronk which is my major concern: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page there are many more. Also, as you know, this is an international site and is viewed by many countries. The 28, 29, 30, 31 and maybe 32 references have to be replaced with just the pertinent information about Kronk and the police without mentioning their personal problems which they could sue and say the repetition of the information is adversely affecting their lives. Mugginsx (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That matter is up for debate on BLP. My only concern is is someone else going to correct the inaccurate Morales material or should I? That is a real BLP violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You can disagree with my edits all you want. But excluding "At the Casey Anthony trial" is not creating "artificial difference between evidence and the trial." That's excluding unneeded messiness. As if we really need to specify which trial is being talked about. Are you kidding me? Further, the number of witnesses being at trial should not be mentioned in the Evidence section. And having the "number of witnesses" information presented at the bottom of the Witness testimony section was already settled. Did you think I would forget? All you do is rehash past discussions and wait some days or a month before trying to format the article in a way that people already disagreed with.

Morales's testimony also does not belong in the Evidence section. It belongs in the Witness testimony section, where I put it. It not being in both places is not a BLP violation. Your claiming that it is...is as silly other things you have claimed to be a BLP violation, such excluding any mention of Bradley's admission from the Witness testimony section when it is already covered in the Evidence section. But by all means, take it to the BLP Noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Flyer, I did not know those issues were already settled. 64.148.58.54 (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Muggins, only one issue was settled -- placement of the dates -- and you helped settle that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize that this was a duplicative mention of Morales. And why pray tell is that "joke" cartoon so important it gets mentioned twice, except to make it look like Anthony learned chloroforming from her boyfriend, something never proved? It's just looks like someone who hates Casey Anthony and is trying to prove her guilty is pushing their POV. Plus the reference failed and unverified info can be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that having it included twice is to make Casey Anthony look guilty. You are always assuming that we are trying to make Anthony look guilty, in the same way that you are always trying to make her look less guilty. I don't care if she looks guilty or not in this article, because she's going to look guilty to some people either way. In this case, I care about what makes sense formatting-wise. It makes sense to me that the Morales information be in both the Evidence and Witness testimony sections, since it was used as evidence and Morales testified about it. The evidence part should be in the Evidence section. The testimony part should be in the Witness testimony section. That's what I did. I did that with other witness testimony you included in the Evidence section as well, as that one link above shows. I don't see why his testimony needs to be placed beside the evidence in the Evidence section. Plenty of Wikipedia articles covering trials include evidence that does not portray the defendant in a positive light, and then leave the relevant section to tackle challenges to that evidence. It's not as though any of the Evidence against Casey Anthony is positive. The challenges to that evidence are happening in the Witness testimony section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure an eventual RfC will sort out what evidence needs to be in and out. The bottom line on this issue is you still need a reference from the pretrial evidence period that actually describes the photo being available pretrial and you don't have one yet. Evidently you still have not checked the reference. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-trial evidence or trial evidence. It's still evidence, and the Evidence section is no longer divided into "pre-trial" and "trial." Evidence, no matter the time frame, goes there. It was obviously relevant enough for Morales to testify about it. WP:RfC? Go right ahead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And "a reference from the pretrial evidence period that actually describes the photo being available pretrial"? Huh? We don't have to describe it as being "pre-trial" or "trial" at all. And if we did, we certainly would not need "a reference from the pretrial evidence period." Any new reference stating that it is "pre-trial" would suffice. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were making that distinction of Pre-trial evidence vs trial evidence. So why isn't all the evidence mentioned twice? Meanwhile, you still need to reference actual description of photo. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If there were more evidence in the Evidence section, then perhaps it would be. As it stands, what is mentioned in the Evidence section actually is mentioned again in the Witness testimony section because of course the prosecution and defense are going to address the evidence to argue their sides to the jury. If you spot anything in the Evidence section that is not also addressed in the Witness testimony section...but can and should be...then feel free to add it there. (And you should know I don't mean Bradley's admission; that is already addressed in both spots, with one spot covering the details.) But I point out again that the Morales information is not exactly repeated twice, since the witness testimony part is not in the Evidence section. It's not too unlike what we did with the Bradley information. The Morales part should be reworded until...if...we find a reference relaying that exact description of the photo. It can mention the caption "Win her over with Chloroform" instead, like this source you included mentions.

On a side note, this piece of evidence you removed should be added back to the Evidence section...with a better source. I'm not sure if either the prosecution or defense called people to the stand about it, but it should still be included in the Evidence section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22 wrote: The Morales part should be reworded until...if... Unless you have some reference this IS a BLP violation.

WP:BLP: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

Obviously I should remove it immediately - especially since you seem reluctant to properly source it. But I'll give it til tomorrow. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation if you would just properly attribute your source. When you added the above source, you should have changed the text that was there along with it. That was on you. Not me! WP:BURDEN. What you should have done was correct it immediately, since you added a source that could correct it. But since you are too lazy to properly attribute your own source, or rather too biased -- to change the wording to "Win her over with Chloroform" instead -- I will. But you would do well in the future than to give me a damn warning of "I'll give it til tomorrow," as if you run things here, especially in cases where I did not add the information. You have been fiddling with that text for the longest now and you should have taken care of it. It's not like I was arguing for inclusion. I was arguing that it should be reworded and pointed you to your own source to do just that, since you were complaining that the "actual description of photo" is not referenced. I was telling you how to fix an issue that can be simply fixed. But, no, you'd rather remove the negative material and harp on its original wording. Why you think getting a reference or properly attributing the text should be on me, and not you, is beyond me.

Also, just because I don't jump to do something, it doesn't mean I'm reluctant. Unlike some people, I am not always on Wikipedia 24-7. I have a life. One that I prefer to enjoy off Wikipedia. You should additionally refrain from citing BLP quotations to me. I am not a newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

<--I believe repeating this info twice is a BLP violation so obviously I'm not looking to reference it. But I have other BLP issues cooking now. Eventually I'll get there, assuming some sharp eyed editor doesn't get there first. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't believe that's the reason you weren't looking to reference it. But, no, including something that has to do with both the evidence and witness testimony in the Evidence and Witness testimony sections is not a BLP violation. It's no more of a BLP violation than any of the other evidence that is mentioned in the Evidence section and then challenged in the Witness testimony section. But I already made my points clear about that above. You scream "BLP violation" about everything, so your screaming it in this case really is no surprise. I'll be ready when you try to get your way with this, too. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've said repeatedly that the artificial division of the evidence and witness sections has BLP implications, and I'm working on making that easily understood by NPOV editors. I've bothered to address this because it strikes me as something that looks like just a smear and isn't even as important as, say, the Tatoo or photos of her partying, which aren't mentioned at all. So it looks like people are just looking to slap dash stuff in there that looks bad with no consideration for even what the prosecution thought were the important points. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no artificial division in having an Evidence section and a Criminal trial section. The only artificial division are the extra subheadings that were created not too long ago to break up the Criminal trial section, something I disagreed with because it was not needed at all. And such divisions certainly have not created BLP issues. Saying that "it is a smear" is absurdity at its best, considering that plenty of Wikipedia articles covering trials have evidence and trial separations without any problems. Saying the evidence included "isn't even as important as, say, the Tatoo or photos of her partying"? Um, that is only more negative information about Anthony. That "looks bad," as in implicating Anthony. But if you want to add it, add it. Your interpretation on BLP issues boggles my mind. The same goes for your formatting skills. Instead of having a clear, concise section dealing with witness testimony only, we should have a section that jumbles together all the details about the evidence and witness testimony? Disagree. But take it to the BLP Noticeboard or WP:RfC when you're ready, and I'll be ready. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence removal: Wow speaking of trimming, why was the hair evidence removed? If it was a matter of a source, I will be happy to find another one and add it back. Also, Morales testified in front of the jury that he thought the chloroform image was a funny joke, is there a reason this was re-worded in the article? ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 06:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere: What hair evidence? Put it back in. Also, I liked what you said about Morales and I know it is all confirmed because I listened to all of his testimony it was all confirmed by my sources (video and otherwise). Carol is making a WP:I don't understand it objection it seems. Carol, you really need to get sound on your computer (you said on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS yesterday you don't have sound. If you did you would understand this trial better. Put Morales back in too. Didn't know who took it now I see.

The DCF report looks fine and, as I said before, it is certainly within the scope of the Death of Caylee Anthony. In fact, it is one of the most important items in my view, along with the Verdict. It is a verdict itself about her behavior towards Caylee which is documented by a State Agency that is empowered and directed by Law to make that kind of judgment. No one can contest it. Mugginsx (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment on "defamation" issue

Someone advised me that the relevant issue here may not be just whether someone is saying that their legal expertise - which trumps Wikipedia policies - means they know better than other editors what goes into an article that's defamatory. A statement like "this is defamation" might also be interpreted to mean "I'm going to see that Wikipedia is sued". Even if the person saying it doesn't mean that, and even if others don't consciously understand that, it hangs over the talk page, poisoning the conversation. As someone once wrote per [WP:No legal threats]] "Wikipedia is really sensitive about legal matters so a person claiming to have some legal clout in the real world should have a bit of caution about how assertive they are." There is a big difference between saying something goes against WP:BLP policy, which is what I always say, and repeating over and over again "defamation" and "we might get sued" in response to edits you may not like. So I personally would like to see it stopped. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the tiresome and often mistated claim by the above editor who opened up a discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS it was determined that I was correct that linking to a libelous/defamatory website IS legally "repeating the defamation or libel" and a WP:BLP issue, but with the caveat that "only if the information is incorrect to begin with". http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm was one of the reference used in the discussion. that editor was AzureCitizen.

The second "finding" was that it was WP:NPOV Section: Due and undue weight paragraph 2, also referredto WP:Undue - to use a reference that actually refers to someone else and only briefly refers to the person the referencing it is supposed to be referecing. Example http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains - The Kronk statement that "he reported what looked like a skull several times...one of the officers that came on one occasion searched and said he did not see it." The referencing given is actually about the policeman that getting fired because he did an improper search. The veteran editor stated: "The reference title can in and of itself preclude its use, even if the information is otherwise related". (My76Strat) As of yesterday, both Carol and myself stated that we are now satisfied with the answers. Mugginsx (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

More accurate info from BLPN discussion Since I think Mugginsx somewhat mistates what was said, and there were shades of opinions, here are direct links to 2 sections of relevance and what I consider most relevant quotes from other editors. Mugginsx can add more, but obviously people should just read the last section particularly. I don’t completely agree one or two points by My76Strat, but I'll deal with specific cases if they show up.

• Sorting out 3 issues for noninvolved editors (as I see it) (relevant excerpt)

1. Can we use WP:RS that have negative information about people who are non-notable, but important to the topic of the article, assuming the information is not used in a WP:Undue way.... 2. Replacing one WP:RS with another than does not have the negative information.... (From Carolmooredc)

• Attempt to answer question #1 from above

AzureCitizen:

I'm sure I'm going to regret getting myself involved here, but it looks like nobody else is stepping in to offer an opinion, LOL. I would say that editors may use a WP:RS that has negative information about people who are otherwise non-notable, but are important to the topic of an article, assuming that the information is not used in a WP:Undue Way or violates any other Wikipedia policies. Editors should take care to discern if the negative information is potentially defamatory or violates privacy laws. Obviously, defamation and privacy law violations are prohibited by Wikipedia policies for good reasons, including exposure to risk just by linking to them. There is a great deal of WP:RS "negative" information, however, that does not constitute defamation or violate privacy laws. Sorting it out may require careful consideration. If an editor feels that something is defamatory, it is probably best to temporarily pull the material down and sort it out on talk pages where consensus can be reached before it is re-inserted. Would someone like to highlight a particular link that they feel constitutes defamatory material? Please post the link (assuming it's a WP:RS) and indicate which material therein is problematic, along with the specific rationale as to why you perceive it to be legally actionable defamation or a privacy law violation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat: The main problem is that the reference, as titled is not about the death of Caylee Anthony, it is about the police officer. While it would be perfectly fine in an article about the officer, if he was otherwise notable enough to have an article, it is UNDUE to promote his personal shame, in the name of WP:V, especially when another source can substantiate the fact which is related to the article. The article also states that an appeal is underway, and while a news organization has certain first amendment rights, and can retract a wrong statement, it isn't entirely clear that an encyclopedia enjoys the same protection. And it is Wikipedia policy which primarily exceeds the minimum requirements of the law. To the extent, Casey has some unfaltering headlines, that is like an apple to an orange, in that she is notable, and directly related to the article. IMO My76Strat (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have less problem with this second source. It is appropriately about the subject of the article, references valid facts for inclusion, and should not be precluded for a cursory mention that one could classify as negative. If the reference was titled in such a way as to itself be about Mr. Kronk and his personal finances, then I would consider it off track and UNDUE. This is my opinion, and as I stated earlier, I am interested to see where consensus aligns, because it is a compelling consideration. My76Strat (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen: (Replying collectively to both editors and several postings above) Mugginsx, yes, you've got it right - 1) these articles are not defamation in my opinion and 2) if they were defamation and Wikipedia linked to them, we'd be republishing libel which is actionable. The article about the deputy sheriff is entirely factual based on matters of public record, and even if he appealed it, it wouldn't change the facts reported (and he actually dismissed his appeal and requested that he be allowed to resign a few weeks later anyway). The information about the meter reader isn't a problem either... the fact that he owes $10k in child support is a matter of public record (anyone can get that information from the clerk's office), and he voluntarily went on television and publicly talked about being accused of kidnapping and getting his record expunged, etc.
As a side note, in the United States, testimony given in court is privileged against suit for defamation. If witnesses had to worry about whether or not what they said could be held up to civil suit standards for what is "true" and "false" regarding other people and defamation, they wouldn't be able to freely testify. Of course, that doesn't mean they are free to lie either, as we criminally prosecute people for perjury. Ordinarily, imputing someone else committed a criminal offense and communicating that to third parties in speech or print is defamation per se if it's false. However, if person A testifies in court that person B told them (assuming a hearsay exception) that they murdered person C, it's privileged and cannot be used in a civil defamation suit regardless of the truth or falsity.

Now... if we as Wikipedia editors state this as a fact in an article: "person B murdered person C," we'd better be very careful about the truth or falsity of that fact! Were they convicted for it? If so, better to rephrase as follows: "Person B was convicted at his trial for the murder of person C." But even if there wasn't a conviction, we would also be safe to make a statement such as this, complete with an iron clad reference citation: "At person B's trial, person A testified that person B told them they murdered person C," along with whatever other relevant facts and outcomes came out of the trial, including the fact that they were found not guilty if that was the outcome. Imagine the problems our free and open society would have if the media and even just individual citizens would have communicating about these sorts of things if they couldn't even do that without fear of being sued!  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

End of quotes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates

I'd like hold a straw poll to see whether people support the slow removal of the citation templates. There's no rush, but if they could be removed bit by bit—with no more being added—it would mean that eventually the article would be easier to edit again. Is this something editors here would support?

• Support. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not Support. Templates are fine. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 06:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Wouldn't support, per what I stated in our old discussion about it at the Vegetarianism article. "I prefer citation templates; I feel that it is neater... [Having] reference templates is what I have seen during most GA and FA nominations. Most editors passing those articles feel that citation templates are neater and display more or more accurate information, such as who wrote the articles (which is something people often forget to do without citation templates)." Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, Citation templates are useful, and I'm not sure why they should be removed. Bots use them for certain things, as well.  Chickenmonkey  07:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have been having a hard time loading and editing this article and thought it was just me. Don't think everyone has got fast computers. Mugginsx (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Or at least stop adding them and take out redundant references. Citation templates also makes it difficult to add quotations or additional info (which in this case we sometimes need more of) - without having to research the formats of the dang thing. It would be a nice compromise, in between Raw URLs and complicated citations. People who don't like to use them aren't going to use them to put in names anyway; easier to just go through and add important info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not seeing how citation templates make it difficult to add quotations. Whether you mean in text or within the references, it's pretty easy for me. Although...quotations generally shouldn't be within the references. In any regard, you shouldn't have to research reference formats in this case, since we're mostly using news sources for this article (until the scholars get to writing about this case). Thus, all you have to do is copy and paste any news template you see in this article and simply fill it in with the correct information. This is the easiest way for those of you who don't know how use templates to learn. Besides editors forgetting to add in the author, date and accessdate without reference templates, what I hate most about editors not using the templates are the editors who don't use attributes for multiple citations of the same reference or footnote and instead use the same reference repeatedly in whole. That is something that makes the article heavier and slower to open. It's also not what should be done. Whether you are using citation templates or not, you can use ref attributes by using <ref name=name>details of the citation</ref>. Thereafter, the same footnote may be used multiple times by adding <ref name=name/>. If the name contains an embedded blank space, you must either add straight quotation marks (<ref name="name more"/>) or replace the unacceptable blank space with an acceptable symbol such as an underscore or a hyphen (e.g., <ref name=name_more/> or <ref name=name-more/>), thus eliminating the need for quotation marks. The name is case-sensitive, but quoted names match names without quotes; USGS is matched by "USGS" but not by usgs. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Citation templates ensure that citations have consistent layout and punctuation, regardless of media type and source (archive or live), and allow more time to be spent on content, and less on minutia like citation punctuation and spacing, especially for journal and archive citations. Citation templates are typically used in GA and FA. But I support conglomeration of citations for the purpose of removal of excess citations, and the use of named references wherever possible. (In my opinion, the slight text size penalty imposed by citation templates is insignificant compared to their benefits.) --Lexein (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to look and see if you think there are just too many redundant refs in the article, which is part of the problem. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bolding my statement. Wait a minute, we are talking about two completely independent things:

1. "Removing citation templates" (<ref>{{cite xxx|...}}</ref>), in favor of hand-built plain refs (<ref>...</ref>) This is the OP's question.
2. Merging/coalescing redundant refs: something I agree with, but is not the RfC question straw poll under discussion. --Lexein (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

[Insert]: Thanks. Didn't realize it was an RfC. Anyway, it seems that was part of the original discussion way up there, but evidently not part of this particular section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the tag on the Reference section, so I went through and added author, date, etc for each ref that was listed in the actual source. I also consolidated duplicate refs, of which I only found 2. If the ref was a bare url then I added it into a template, if the ref was a template then I added the info into the template, if it was a bare ref then I added info into the bare ref. I didn't add info for the youtube video listed, but I will get to it. Since this meets the requirements of the tag, I'm going to remove the tag now...ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 22:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking for clarification: If the citation templates are adding to loading and editing time as Slim Virgin indicates, shouldn't that be our primary concern, i.e, for the readers and not for the editors? Mugginsx (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did Slim Virgin say that? As I said, the slight text size penalty imposed by citation templates is insignificant compared to their benefits. --Lexein (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, I'm not seeing what would be a problem for readers, unless they have dial up and this page opens slow for them. But that's the case for a lot of high-profile topics, and general topics, on Wikipedia as well. We haven't done much to make articles easier to load for people with dial up. Wikipeda's thinking on that is generally..."If they have dial up, that is their problem." As for editing, our readers don't need to edit...unless they are correcting something. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - If I'm understanding the OP's question to be "Should we remove normally required citation templates which consistently format source information, in favor of non-formatted refs", isn't the whole point of properly formatted cite temps to help the reader look up the sources for themselves? Wouldn't the first complaint of a GA - let alone an FA - reviewer be that all the refs need to be properly formatted? Agree with Lexein that the benefits of cite temps outweighs whatever inconvenience might be caused by loading times. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Another juror speaks out

This just came out, another juror has spoken about the trial, specifically the deliberations and the verdict. The interview was with People Magazine. Here's one link I've found so far:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20521892,00.html

He says if he voted today he would change his vote to manslaughter, and also says the trial ruined his life. wowie wow! ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

He also said:

I live in fear that someone will find me. I Google my name every day to see if anyone has figured out who I am. The few people that do know haven't said anything, but one of my friends told me that his wife forbid him to talk to me. My own sister cussed me out. It has ruined my life.

Obviously the fact that they are in fear for their life may affect their perceptions and that kind of quote from him needs to be mentioned. Perhaps the trial ruined his life because the media played up the villainess aspect and played down the many challenges to the evidence that convinced the jurors at the time. One reason I'm working so hard to organize the evidence and defense challenges to it in a coherent form is this article could end up saving a juror's life. After all jurors aren't as likely to be as protected as Casey Anthony for the next few years. So remember that if one is thinking of reverting information meant to make the article more accurate and NPOV regarding the defense. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere - I say, put it in. Its a good find. Mugginsx (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact I see there is no mention of threats vs Casey Anthony or Judge Perry's not releasing the jury's name's until October because of threats. Just more stuff to make the article properly rounded and NPOV and BLP compliant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My only concern is that he says he would change his vote, but that could be caused by two reasons: 1) he sees the public outrage over the verdict and wants to change his vote just to appease the public, or most importantly, 2) he wants to change his vote only after reading more court documents that he was prevented from seeing during the trial, thus his 'updated vote' (so to speak) is tainted. Of course, you don't get to change your vote at this point. Hmm, there are so many quirks about this affair, it just keeps going...ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere The juror is expressing only his own opinion and negative experiences. I do not see an issue of any kind here. It's far more important than Nancy Grace's comments. Put it in and see what happens. As an aside, it's a sad commentary on the public and even his family. He was subpoenaed to be a juror. It's not like he "volunteered". The Prosecution overcharged the case with what actual evidence they had, and had little to work with. That's what the jurors had to work with. Mugginsx (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no issue, I was just reflecting. He says a lot of things...I guess I will leave it to others to decide which statements should be added. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 08:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

An information request only

Just a information request for my own edification. What is the latest news on Casey Anthony's probation? Does she still have to return to Orlando area? The various news reports are very confusing. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a breaking story. She reported. They haven't said where. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/25/florida.casey.anthony.probation/ --agr (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the info and the link. Mugginsx (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Baez told Fox News that Casey has an intent to take online classes instead of looking for a job. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Door safety lock issue: "Closing" ref has info on page 2 of 5

This info, which I did not put in the article originally (I just ref'd the part on the photos), is in fact in the article with the ref name "Closing". As has been mentioned before, it goes on for several separate pages. So can we go back to what ever version is most accurate?. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What is accurate is that the statement states that she "appears" to .... not that she "is opening" the sliding glass door

I am not sure which we are talking about. Which statement? She never "opens the door" if you are talking to Caylee. If you are talking about Kronk, his testimony was never impeached and he did indeed receive the reward and lastly, he was never charged or arrested for planting a body in the woods. That last part cannot go in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Your reference now (don't know who put the other reference in that I deleted. is http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-03/justice/florida.casey.anthony.trial_1_casey-anthony-caylee-jurors/2?_s=PM:CRIME

But Baez said the drowning is "the only explanation that makes sense." states that Baez showed jurors a photograph of Caylee opening the home's sliding glass door by herself.

I don't remember that photograph but If it states it with your new reference then one of them is wrong. I looked at both of them and one says "appears to be closing" and the other "closing." I will not object however to the new reference you found. Mugginsx (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is OR but I would like to add that the photograph in question was edited/modified/faked. You can see the top of the door doesnt line up with the bottom, and you can see on her left foot (shoe) that someone copied and pasted the top half of her shoe back into the photograph to make her look taller. I saw a discussion about this on a blog including analysis of the photograph. Maybe I can find it...and yes...it only appears she is opening the door, actually she is just standing there holding the glass door handle in her hand...it doesn't mean she's opening it. Baez even said himself that it was an odd photograph...taking a picture of someone standing at the glass door. Some have questioned whether or not it was even Caylee with her back to the camera, perhaps another child was posing. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is extremely interesting. I would not doubt it was a fake. The entire family seemed to lie and connive and concoct in one way or another through the entire trial. It the word was "appeared" to be opening that is just what I thought. There are two differing accounts. Thanks for that although I don't know if I'm up to another "difference of opinion" with any editors over it. I know how heavy those sliding glass doors are and I cannot imagine a child that age being able to open them. They have heavy safety glass (required by law in Florida) for protection against hurricanes. I would love to see those photographs myself. I was listening to Baez's closing arguements but only got to Tape3 and I think they go up to 7 ot 8. Do you remember if they show those at trial so we could see them if you can't find the blog? Not feeling well tonite - got broncitis so I am signing off early. AzureCitizen was helping us but now a simple discussion has gone off the charts and I am sure he doesn't know and doesn't want to know what we are talking about. 69.183.178.219 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We have two WP:RS refs, one says she's opening the door, one says she's appearing to open it. We do not use blog conspiracy theory speculation in wikipedia and it's really off topic to do so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Watch the way you talk to editors Carol! He NEVER MENTIONED PUTTING IT IN THE ARTICLE. PAY ATTENTION PLEASE BEFORE YOU BERATE SOMEONE. IT MAKES YOU SOUND FOOLISH AND IT HURTS SOMEONE ELSES FEELINGS Mugginsx (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The clause about the sliding door was SETTLED. You provided a reference and I said put it in. It was NOT the reference that was in the when I changed it. OK IT IS SETTLED. KEEP IT THE WAY YOU WANT IT AND LET US PLEASE MOVE ON TO KRONK AND CAN WE PLEASE KEEP HIM IN ONE SECTION. Mugginsx (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't have to show photo to be used here

OK, I'm realizing this whole section is based on an editor who is under the impression that if two WP:RS say that the defense showed the jury a photo, there has to be a photo to prove that point to their standards of evidence not according to wikipedia policy. That is not how wikipedia works.

See This Mugginsx diff whose edit summary reads: Reference does not support statement. Where is a picture of Caylee opening a sliding glass door herself?

This ref says: He showed jurors a photograph of Caylee opening the home's sliding glass door by herself. This ref says: A picture of Caylee appearing to open a sliding-glass door at the Anthony family home was also shown to the jury. I don't care if it our text says Opens or appears to open. I do care that editors are under the impression they can delete material because it doesn't meet their standards of evidence, as opposed to wikipedia's. This has wasted time for several editors. Please read once again WP:Disruptive editing.

Anyway, here is the original text which is not word for word from the source: He said the drowning is "the only explanation that makes sense" and showed jurors a photograph of Caylee opening the home's sliding glass door by herself. He stressed that there were no child safety locks in the home and that both of Casey Anthony's parents, George and Cindy Anthony, testified that Caylee could get out of the house easily.ref *CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

AS I SAID ABOVE. FINE! NO ONE SAID IT NEED A PHOTOGRAPH. I WAS WANTING TO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH FOR MYSELF. WE WERE SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN AT TRIAL. IT WAS AN ASIDE. LET US PLEASE MOVE ON TO KRONK IN THE ONE SECTION WHERE AZURECITIZEN WAS UNLESS HE HAS GIVEN UP ON US COMPLETELY BY NOW. Mugginsx (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Capitals unnecessary. Just think twice or ask questions at talk page before deleting ref'd information, instead of asking a question in the edit summary where you are removing the info. I'll now put it back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I TOLD YOU I WAS NOT DELETING IT JUST MOVING IT. please read what I say and not what you think I say. While we are at it, PLEASE STOP INSERTING YOUR PARAGRAPHS INTO DISCUSSIONS AT A POINT WHERE THEY DO NOT BELONG - something you do all the time. Mugginsx (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How Could The Defense Win?

Okay, so I probably don't understand this all too much because I do lack a knowledge of law, but I simply can't figure out how the defense could win with their statement that Caylee accidentally drowned in a pool. I mean, that doesn't explain the duct tape found around her skull and to me that would be an obvious indicator that the accidental drowning excuse isn't true. Was she acquitted simply because the evidence for both sides was skewed and couldn't affirm either the defense's or the prosecution's arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.9.78 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point the article still does not present a coherent picture of the prosecution evidence and the defense's many challenges to it that resulted in an acquittal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, that is your opinion. Most people have come to the same conclusion as the IP even after having watched the entire trial live. But, yes, we are working on filling in this article, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol: Actually it is you that does not understand. The reason the case was lost (at least this is what the majority of the jurors said) was they did not find that the prosecution made its case. They DID NOT SAY that the Defense challenging the evidence convinced them of a darn thing. Never mentioned except perhaps in your mind. Show we where a juror said that. Mugginsx (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction: At this point the article still does not present a coherent picture of the prosecution evidence, not to mention the defense's many challenges to it that probably resulted in an acquittal, IMHO. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Need more balance for the Witness testimony section

Right now, the Opening statements and witness testimony section is leaning more in favor of the defense. A little more from the prosecution witnesses should be in there. Let's do our best to make sure both sides are getting fairly equal representation. But we also don't need to/shouldn't mention every single witness. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wowsers, yeah you're right. Same goes for Closing arguments...we have some witness testimony in the Closing argument section. Sections are becoming mixed. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You got the mixup right... CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That should be fixed -- witness testimony in the closing arguments section -- until a redesign of how to best present all this information is fully or almost-fully endorsed...if ever endorsed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Until we reach consensus, I went ahead and added more witness testimony to the closing argument section just to balance the POV. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 00:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere, I can actually see why the following about Cindy Anthony is in the Closing arguments section: ...however, Cindy testified that Caylee did not have easy access to the pool and the toddler did not know how to open the backyard gate. Although Cindy Anthony testified that Caylee could not put the ladder on the side of the pool and climb up, Baez alleged that Cindy Anthony may have left the ladder up the night before. "She didn't admit to doing so in testimony", he said, "but how much guilt would she have knowing it was her that left the ladder up that day?"

It's explaining how Baez used Cindy Anthony's testimony in closing arguments. But maybe the "however, Cindy testified that" line should be reworded? It's there because it balances out the previous line. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-word if you desire, we're trying to get a lot in...ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 00:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how that line should be reworded. There's no way to get around the fact that it's a testimony statement by Cindy Anthony as opposed to Baez relaying a testimony statement by Cindy Anthony. So I suppose it's left best as it is. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will remove it, no worries...ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 00:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be there for balance, though? To contrast the line before it? Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you break apart those sentences? ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said previously there needs to be more in the witness testimony about evidence section and less in closing, as will be clear soon enough, depending on hurricanes and downed powerlines. Just to throw in a general two cents for now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What's in the Closing arguments section is fine, in my opinion. It adequately summarizes the points by both sides during closing arguments. And it's not like closing arguments were brief, especially regarding the defense. But, yes, there needs to be more in the Witness testimony section. But, again, we should not include every single witness called upon. Or even most of them. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Krystal Holloway

I see that the very complicated testimony of Krystal Holloway is now factually accurate as edited by CarolMooredc. I hope editors will be very careful before considering editing that section in the future. It was reported inaccurately by many newspapers and it was very difficult for all of us to achieve agreement as to what actually was said. Good work Carol! Mugginsx (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If this section was under Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony#Draft_of_Krystal_Holloway_paragraph.28s.29 people would be more likely to find the comment in the future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As you and others have pointed out in the past, we are not supposed to enter new information under old discussions on the Talk page. We also cannot put information in after the fact on archived material says the bot who is monitoring archived material. What we could do is repeat it on every Talk page when this one in eventually archived. Mugginsx (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You can put in new subsections under relevant sections, even if discussion seems finished and your comment was relevant. Though your comment could also just have been a paragraph. It hasn't been archived yet so that is not an issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And what about when this page is archived? Are you going to put the entire large discussion on that page and the page after that, etc, etc. I am telling you people are not going to notice it six months from now with all of the minutia of the prior conversation. It makes the discussion look like something it was not to put it in there. This is a New Section I put in purposely to keep short and draw future editors attention to it. Please leave it where it is. Mugginsx (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DCF

There is only one thing that is incorrect about that paragraph that could probably be made right by the insertion of a few words. I am not sure what words those would be though. There are legal consequences to that report. The legal consequences are not that she would go to jail or even get a fine but there are legal consequences that I described before. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to add a few words to make the paragraph entirely correct? Mugginsx (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Find a WP:RS that describes them. In Wikipedia it is WP:original research to just make up your own. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Revised according to your actual reference. It was you that mistated it in two places. Mugginsx (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy talk page

Discussion between two editors unrelated to the article Death of Caylee Anthony
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We are all being discussed on a noticeboard within any prior announcement by the editor to any of us. It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. One of the sections is entitled: Editors running attack pages off-site which doesn't "sound" like it would apply to anyone of us, but if you read down to almost the present end of the discussion there is a subsection CarolMooredc creates entitled: How about some specific wording in a new section below? where she is asking for the "banning" of editors who fit the criteria she lists. That is where she attempts to describe us "using her own characterization of what we do on this article and talk page". Noticeboard guidelines:'Users involved • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) part of the standard rules of initiating a noticeboard) Mugginsx (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC) On policy talk pages one can discuss general cases, which is what I was doing, as long as don't name names, which I didn't in the specific cases. This is not a noticeboard. And, FYI, I was thinking only of the problematic user name in my list of BLP page problems. The other examples were about an editor who left a couple years ago and an actual WP:BLP I have been working on for 3 years. However, if you choose to interpret the criticisms as applying here, so be it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC) This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons is what I am talking about. You very carefully describe a new user on Wikipedia without regared to notifying him so he could defend himself. You mistate his actions and intentions. You asked that this new editor and other editors you list might be banned. You state it to Administrator Atama and other editors. You also violated Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. You then described other editors on this board. In another sentence you describe myself and once again mistate completely what occurred and directed them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS which is between only you and me with a kindly editor who tried to help. I guess "no good deed goes unpunished in his case". I have no doubt that if and when they look at it they will see it does not even slightly resemble your description of it, just as Transporterman did as soon as I made my one paragraph response which proved you accusations to be false. There is NO misunderstanding about whom you mean. Mugginsx (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Electricity still on and I'll just quickly quote the below from BLP Policy Talk page. What I write doesn't resemble much the above. The first is an editor retired for two years; the second, third, fourth is about a BLP i've worked on for 3 years (A BLP Not in the least Casey Anthony related.); only the 5th is relevant to an editor here and I did say I'd bring it to his talk page and did a few hours later. I don't know what you are talking about with the alleged defamation link. But I'll have to find out another day. Good evening. From BLP Policy Talk page at this diff: Editor who worked for advocacy organization and worked under own name who was always putting negative stuff into organizations/people's articles from research he'd done on his job. He seemed too popular with top Admins and got away with it for a long time til finally the constant barrage of attacks from editors who challenged his COI made him quit. (Unless he's now got a new handle.) Editor with clear identifying handle who has attack blog piece complaining about subject of BLP and specific recent edits to the article. Editor with pretty clear identifying handle who had written against and helped organize a protest against the subject of a BLP, got that info in the article and continued to edit and opine against the subject until a WP:COIN; even after that kept opining away on talk page and doing less controversial edits without mentioning to new editors his COI. Three or four editors who declare - often repeatedly - that subject is a BAD PERSON for whatever reason. They support putting in more and more negative material about the person and even declare that editors who have just BLP concerns must be bad people too because they "defend" this bad person. WP:Single purpose account using the joke name of a prosecutor to make sometimes questionable edits against the person who was prosecuted, to argue on talk page against balanced information being put in the article about the trial, and even engage in admittedly WP:OR conspiracy theories about alleged falsification of evidence by the person and their attorney on article talk page and a user talk page. (Ok, I'll put a note on their talk page.) [End quote from BLP policy talk page.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC) You falsely characterized an obviously new editor behind his back and within a discussion of blocking and banning certain editors. When it was suggested that you warn him, instead of doing it in the appropriate way for a new editor Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, you went to his talk page and suggested that he may have edited under another username or IP because he seemed very familiar with Wiki policy, which he is not. That is not a friendly warning. It is an accusation. It is all there for anyone to read. Since it seems that you have made recent changes to your words in your comments section after my comments, without properly crossing them out, I am responding to your initial answer. End of discussion for me. Mugginsx (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Per WP:TALK and as this thread doesn't actually pertain to discussing improvements to the Death of Caylee Anthony article, it would be best for any interested editors to continue this conversation either 1) on private talk pages, or 2) on a relevant noticeboard. Kind regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Casey Car crushed.

Not sure if this should be added, but I found this from the news. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwpD1xHLMvA&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqh_85XaAyY --XkariX (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the family asked to have all the evidence in the trial returned to them, including the car. They don't want evidence in the trial being sold on ebay to the highest bidder and having to be reminded of their loss every time a piece of evidence goes up for sale. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 07:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

KRONK'S Reward and son

These matters have absolutely nothing to do with the Death of Caylee Anthony. Roy Kronk was never impeached for his testimony. The Defense used the reward and his son and a "smoke screen" to discredit Mr. Kronk but never succeeded in doing so. He was never arrested, tried or convicted for having lied to the police, placing a body in the woods, or any other crime having to do with this trial. He received his reward. You may not like Roy Kronk, but you cannot deny he found the body and called police not just once but three times. Mugginsx (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think I am taking this so personally? The defense had two theories about Kronk. One that Kronk might have killed Caylee. But the judge would not allow evidence of Kronk's allegedly kidnapping of a girlfriend (which you mentioned on BLPN), violence towards women and his use of duct tape to tie one up. This is at the Central FL News 13 timeline one WP:RS that infers he tied her up with duct tape. More refs on the topic easily can be found by those who know how to use news.google. But as I have said here and elsewhere, since the judge didn't allow that info it's not relevant.

The second theory which Baez did bring up in opening statements (and perhaps closing) is that Kronk might have moved the remains from somewhere else for his own purposes, like fame and fortune. That's what all the witnesses the defense called about the two previous searches of the area that did NOT turn up her body was all about - which needs to be included in a brief paragraph as well. Just because that's not explicitly in the opening section, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the article. So since this is one of the main defense points it needs to be in there. My mistake was not putting it in the opening arguments as well, which I'll correct soon and put back the other info.

Some might think that it makes the defense looks bad bringing up such a theory. Do you? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, now that you have sound on your computer I advise you to look at the actual trial testimony like you did with Krystal Holloway. I am not being sarcastic when I say this. You cannot rely on what every reference says unless you hear the testimony. That is why SlimVirin said "The trial is the best evidence as to what happened" Your opinions or my opinions about Kronk or anyone else does not belong in this article. As to what was said in opening statements listen to Judge Perry "What the defense attorneys said (as Judge Perry said a million times) is NOT evidence. Just take a minute and listen. Mugginsx (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Also there were only two searches, (again listen to Kronks direct and cross examination and the police tapes) There were three calls but only two searches. Mugginsx (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"The trial is the best evidence as to what happened" means testimony presented at trial, not necessarily first and foremost an editor's WP:OR interpretation of that, without the hint of a word for word transcript. What the defense attorney says is NOT evidence: it is a context for challenges to evidence and testimony and alternate testimony. So the defense made certain opening statement claims (crappy forensics; drowning; sexual molestation; kronk) which it illustrated through questions and its own witnesses. It did not have to present enough to convict anyone of anything, only enough to effectively challenge some witnesses and some evidence. So the whole defense relating to Kronk that was presented at trial belongs in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"as to what happened" means testimony presented at trial, not necessarily first and foremost an editor's WP:OR interpretation of that, without the hint of a word for word transcript." Exactly. What she meant was that the video is the best evidence. Read SlimVirgin's statement. I told you before to get a trial transcript you would have to go to the Orlando courthouse and request one and pay several hundred dollars. Mugginsx (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin knows better than that. Don't ask me to find the relevant quote in the mess above. And even in Slim Chance she thinks that, I guess it would mean we'd have to go to the WP:RSN board to discuss whether an editors WP:OR is a better WP:RS than four or five high quality WP:RS, espeiclly when the editor rarely provides a time stamp and never provides a transcript to prove their point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion section a little confusing. Is the disagreement here over whether or not the trial section should include the Defense bringing up the theory in opening arguments that Kronk might have moved the body? Or something else? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, AzureCitizen. The theory about Kronk maybe moving the body. Mugginsx (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's quite clear. I added Kronk testimony, but it didn't occur to me to look at opening and closing to see if defense's theory about Kronk which those statements support was there. She said the info was irrelevant. I said it is relevant as merely putting in what Baez said in the opening would show. She then went off on some tangent about you can't believe WP:RS and have to believe what she says trial testimony says from her watching trial transcripts. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not mistate what I said Carol. AzureCitizen can read for himself what was actually said. It is very annoying when you do that and very unprofessional. Just speak for yourself please. Mugginsx (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen H E L P both of us P L E A S E. Mugginsx (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's all WP:AGF and avoid characterizing/stating fellow editors positions.  :) If it's included, it needs to be stated in the proper context ("During opening arguments, the Defense contended..." or "...the Defense presented the theory that..." etc.) We want to properly cue the reader since opening and closing arguments are not evidence. However, I'm not sure I follow why it should be excluded; the article should detail the events that happened at trial, and the salient points that both sides made throughout the process are relevant to that end. Assuming that we stick close to cited WP:RS, does anyone feel it should still be excluded? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that whether we should take Mugginsx word about what a video says (even without time stamp and transcript) as being more reliable than what multiple WP:RS say is a long running problem here that more than one editor has commented on, though usually more diplomatically than I did above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, please do not reframe the question before him. Keep it specific. We are talking about Kronk not "a long running problem". We are fortunate enough to have a mediator please don't bring up peripheral problems at this point.. Mugginsx (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You were the one who said above that the video is the best evidence. And I replied for umpteenth time, but not necessarily the best WP:RS for wikipedia unless other refs fail and video is properly time stamped and transcribed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen: To answer your question, Yes, I felt the Kronk stuff about Baez defense theory never proven should not be in. Mugginsx (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right in perceiving that since it was never proven it was just a Defense theory they speculated about in their arguments, but I don't think there is a Wikipedia policy rationale for excluding it (lest we be passing our own POV judgments on what is and isn't credible or "true"). It's just part of what happened at trial. Maybe we should all proceed to looking at a proposed way to word it here on the Talk Page so that we find a proper balance? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm working on - opening and Kronk - to present here. Below examples were just to show the issue was brought up. Assuming rain doesn't knock out my lousy verizon connection yet again today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

::::Carol, he is talking about now and just the Kronk paragraph. He doesn't have all night to wait for an entire rewrite of opening statements. Let's just work with Kronk.to begin with.

AzureCitizen I will start as to what I put in and I know is accurate from references both video and other solid references:

HERE IS THE START OF THE PARAGRAPH

On August 11, 12, and 13, 2008, meter reader Roy Kronk called police about a suspicious object found in a forested area near the Anthony residence. In the first instance he was directed by the sheriff's office to call the Tip line which he did but received no return call. On the second instance, he again called the sheriff's office and eventually was met by two police officers and he reported to them that he had seen what appeared to be a skull near a gray bag.

THIS IS THE SECOND PART OF THE PARAGRAPH - several editors:

On that occasion, the officer conducted a short search and stated he didn't see anything. On December 11, 2008, Kronk again called the police. They searched and found the remains of a child in a cloth bag. Investigative Teams recovered duct tape which was hanging from Caylee's hair and some tissue left on her skull. Over the next four days, more bones were found in the wooded area near the spot where the remains initially had been discovered.

On December 19, 2008, medical examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia confirmed that the remains found were those of Caylee Anthony. The death was ruled a homicide and the cause of death listed as undetermined.

That is the way the paragraph is worded and cited as of this minute. NOW CAROL, PLEASE PUT DOWN EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR VERSION TO BE ABOUT ROY KRONK AND THEN AZURECITIZEN CAN READ THEM BOTH AND COMMENT. Please only put your paragraph without discussion just like I did, otherwise it goes off on another tangent. Mugginsx (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I was talking about changing the opening statements section where I wrote "So the defense made certain opening statement claims (crappy forensics; drowning; sexual molestation; kronk) which it illustrated through questions and its own witnesses." and said a couple times that's what needed to be clarified. And that's the whole point of my section below showing that this was mentioned in opening statements.

Also, I will not create a whole section to ask you to delete all the paragraphs above that are a result of your not understanding my point. And perhaps you could remove your section whose title names two editors and which asks me to remove perfectly relevant info to the point under discussion. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Opening statements on Kronk

Below are just three of dozens of refs on this topic. Note the first ref is the only one that actually is about the opening arguments, so that section is quite weak in general and has to be clearer about the defense case:

• WFTV currently used in article Baez claims that meter reader Roy Kronk hid Caylee's body in the woods.
• Central Florida News 13 Baez claimed Roy Kronk took Caylee's body and hid it. He said the "morally corrupt" meter reader wanted to collect the reward for finding Caylee's body. But according to Baez, Kronk "didn't read the fine print," that the reward was for an alive Caylee Anthony. According to Baez, Kronk went into the wooded area on Aug. 11, 2008, allegedly to urinate, and told his co-workers he found a skull. But when his co-workers started walking into the woods, they were distracted by a dead snake. Baez claimed Roy Kronk told his son overseas "I found Caylee. Watch for me on TV." He said Kronk's son will testify that this conversation with his father happened on Dec. 10, 2008, the day before he called 911 to report finding human remains in the woods.
• CBS news: During opening statements, Casey Anthony's defense team accused Kronk of somehow obtaining Caylee's remains and planting them in the woods to obtain a reward. Lead defense attorney Jose Baez described Kronk as "morally bankrupt," reports the station. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Refocusing

Okay, is there a specific proposal here that anyone wants to put forward for discussion? When there is confusion and misunderstanding (which happens very easily on the Internet and talk pages), it's often best just to let the past recede and restate the issue going forward in a positive direction. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen - Thanks for deleting Mugginsx's section title that improperly named another editor. Hopefully that kind of behavior won't be repeated here again. Shirtwaist ☎ 10:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As said way up there, I'm going to look at current opening and other refs (since there is only one on actual opening) to see how it needs changing to include Kronk info. It seems I heard over and over that Baez had 3 main points and Kronk was third; have to find relevant sources. Just a short sentence or two. And then it will be clear why info deleted from Kronk testimony, as well as other search team evidence is relevant. Hopefully before end of day. Anyway, the Hurricane and downed lines should give Easterners a little break from the article :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

[Insert relevant comment]: Ok, today I dealt with duct tape issue which was terribly misstated in the lead, per WP:BLP. See discussion on bottom. Kronk may have to wait a few days, i.e., if my power goes out from hurricane. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

[Insert relevant comment, as opposed to digression below:]] Ok, back in business electrically after Hurricane but as mention elsewhere am overdue on tomorrow's deadline for a draft chapter of a book. Anyway, I guess that - per my statement above - inserting a bit on Kronk per WP:RS in opening statements and his witness section shouldn't take me too off course on finishing off last 14% of timeline and analysis... (Famous last words.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question relevant to some section or other: I noticed a deleted section on Mugginsx talk page called "Naming other editors in talk page section heads." I'm confused by the last two paragraphs between AzureCitizen and Shirtwaist which seem to be about the fact that all evidence of the section title and content of this deleted section is gone from the diffs of this talk page. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't quite understand the explanation of why. A strike through is appropriate in situation of obnoxious comments by vandals who are then banned, but complete removal where its something by an editor in good standing is not. I think the diffs should be put back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen: He states he was in error over that particular item. It is here on MY talk page. Should have been on yours. Maybe he thought we were the same person. Do not know. Anyway, it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mugginsx&diff=446799143&oldid=446798282 He states there: ::Nevermind - It was "truncated for performance reasons", which is why I didn't see it in the preview window. Silly me for not checking the full diff page! Duh...Shirtwaist ☎ 10:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, whatever that means. ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh for cryin out loud...To clarify for carolmooredc and mugginsx - AzureCitizen refactored this talk page for whatever reason, this included the deleting of the title of a section created by mugginsx that read: ==Carol, can you please move this paragraph to somewhere else so we can all concentrate on the same paragraph on Kronk that AzureCitizen is looking at? Thank you.==. As I pointed out here before to mugginsx, naming other editors in section titles is against WP guidelines. To find out exactly what kind of refactoring AzureCitizen did, you'll have to ask them. I had nothing to do with it, but was glad to see the offending section head gone, which is what I told AzureCitizen after their response to the warning I posted on mugginsx's talk page here, all of which was later deleted by mugginsx. AzureCitizen's refactoring of the article's talk page was so extensive that the offending section title I was looking for didn't even show up in the diff preview because it was so far down in the diff, which truncates extremely long changes in the preview only. Upon looking at the entire diff page for AzureCitizen's refactoring edit, the offending title was indeed there, and had been deleted. That's all. As I now see that getting involved with the editors of this article in any way, even simply to point out violations of WP policy, results in drama of this sort, I will, as one valuable editor who is no longer here put it - leave you to it. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ShirtWaist: It was Carol who asked the question to AzureCitizen about what was happening on my Talk Page. I not sure why she is going through my edit history on my talk page and thought that rather bizarre but I found this question by Carol to AzureCitizen and then explained as best I could. As for deleting anything of yours, CarolMooredc moved this discussion around and different parts of it in one section and part of it in another section. I tried to undo it and what happened after that I don't know. Look at the edit history of this talk page please. I did not delete anything of yours unless in Carol's moving the discussion all around something happened. I would have no reason to delete it. Like you, I am sick and tired of editing on this article and am preparing to go back to my medieval articles where most editors respect each other and I am not angry all of the time and having my talk page edit summarys and history examined by another editor and being taken to two noticeboards by the same editor, one which was shut down immediately because I proved in one paragraph her claim was false. I even complimented her this morning on the Krystal Holloway edit when the talk page history and noticeboard going all the way back to July will show I had the fight her tooth and nail about correcting it. I am really tired of this and I believe that it borders harassment. Mugginsx (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

So much is occurring on this talk page that it deserves its own article. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I never saw that before, even when actual death threats were removed, so obviously I was curious. Just a question, improperly put in wrong section, but I won't argue about that. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On a relevant issue, can we NOT mention names in Diffs? It's antagonistic, especially if it takes a talk page discussion to clarify the issue, which I just had to do with Flyer22. And, yes, I know how not to fully repeat a reference, but sometimes one forgets to check and clean it up. Those who leave raw urls all over are a far bigger problem and I don't see their names in diffs. Carolmooredc - 66.44.6.37 (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol: Since you have mentioned my name in edit summaries on many occasions, I cannot understand this comment. Please clarify. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Naming editors in diffs is perfectly acceptable. Editors do it all the time when talking to other editors via the edit summary. If I don't feel like taking it to the talk page, because it's really nothing that has to be taken to the talk page, or I am explaining a change, then I will state the issue in edit summary. And I have spoken to Mugginsx more than once in diffs regarding corrections to his or her edits. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Low and behold in August I wrote following diffs in article:

• 13:55, August 25, 2011 (Undid revision 446680468 by Mugginsx (talk)put sliding glass door reference; thanks tipster) (undo)
• 09:53, August 2, 2011 Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) (99,202 bytes) (Undid revision 442661801 by Mugginsx (talk)we go by sources here not editor speculation; was he ever at her house?) (undo)

Well, one does get frustrated. So shall we all write “filling out information in raw URL left by Muggins” from now on til that issue resolved? There’s more than one of us who are frustrated about that one. But seriously, if one wants to bring the antagonism level down one exercises some self control. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As to CSI finding duct tape "attached"

The police on the scene would have "seen" the duct tape and the skull, but would have not touched it. CSI would have been the ones who actually examined it, bagged it, and then determined that the duct tape was "attached" to the skull. Though CSI are, I think, also police in Florida, http://www.cityoforlando.net/police/pio/releases/2007/8-20-2007%20OPD%20Video%20Forensic%20Imaging%20Unit.htm and http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_CSI%27s_police_officers they are specifically the ones who touch the evidence and made a report for court. That is why I changed "police" to "CSI teams". Mugginsx (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that is what happened or are you supposing it from standard practice? Also the www.cityoforlando.net link you give suggests the unit at the Orlando PD is not called CSI. If not, we should not call it CSI either. --agr (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In was introduced in court and argued intensely. It was the reason the Coroner detmined cause of death as a homicide. She testified in court that "no child should have duct tape across their face". As to statement that CSI - I had a source but it was apparently removed at some point. I will have to find it again. Mugginsx (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK this sources calls them Investigative Teams - better use that. http://www.wftv.com/news/18264817/detail.html Mugginsx (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Duct tape theory debunked; repeated too often currently

The defense successfully challenged and even debunked the duct tape theory which is one of the main reasons Anthony was acquitted. Various facts and opinions defense brought out are:

• Investigators admitted that duct tape that appeared to be on the face could have shifted position as he collected remains.CFNEWS 13
• Medical examiner admitted she didn’t know how the child died.www.news-journalonline (And I hope the implication that she did will NOT resurface in the article as it did briefly today!)
• An FBI forensic document examiner found no evidence of a sticker or sticker residue on the duct tape found near the remains.CFNEWS 13
• Dr. Werner Spitz believes the duct tape was placed on the skull after decomposition and that the crime scene photos of the position of the hair on the skull was staged, possibly by the medical examiner.CFNEWs13
• The FBI forensics expert said the duct tape at the crime scene was dissimilar to that in Anthony home CFNEWS 13
• Cindy said in burying her pet's duct tape was used to keep the plastic bags from opening.CFNEWS 13

I dont think duct tape should be mentioned in the lead without saying the lead strongly challenged it; it should not be mentioned in the discovery section as WP:Undue; it can be mentioned as one of the pieces of evidence leading to prosecution and in trial section, with all the ways above the defense challenged it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The duct tape theory was disputed but not proven. Dr. Spitz never saw the skull WITH the duct tape on it. He just looked at the skull. Mugginsx (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct, the prosecution didn't prove it was used to kill the child and one is innocent til proven guilty. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the "the duct tape theory" was successfully debunked. It's just one side's word against the other side's. I also point out that Garavaglia is the one who took the stand testifying that she determined Caylee's manner of death to be a homicide but listed it as "death by undetermined means". Garavaglia took into account the physical evidence present on the remains she examined, as well as all the available information on the way they were found and what she had been told by the authorities, before arriving at her determination. "We know by our observations that it's a red flag when a child has not been reported to authorities with injury, there's foul play," Garavaglia said. " ... There is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies."

Therefore, yes, the implication that she does know how Caylee died is still in the article. Dr. Werner Spitz's testimony should be included since he is challenging Garavaglia's autopsy report. But his saying that the duct tape was placed there after the body was decomposed doesn't have to mean that it was done by crime scene investigators or Garavaglia's personnel. He doesn't even suggest any of that. What he does suggest is placement of the hair having been staged. But he does not suggest Garavaglia did it. It says "the medical examiner's personnel." Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

One lists all the challenging evidence and lets the read decide, as they let the jury decide. Anyway, something I'll slip in there at some point, and we can discuss what actually gets put in at that point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And as can be seen in these edits,[2][3] it's not just the prosecution and Garavaglia who support that duct tape was found around the skull's mouth. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

See my earlier reply at Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony#Corrected_errors_in_duct_tape_entries. My apologies for not making it a subsection here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

W:RS say "detectives" said “mouth”

In wikipedia we go by sources, not WP:OR using wiki links like Investigator. We wouldn't want to give greater status to a source of info than s/he in fact deserves. Per these sources:

• WFTV aka “remains” on December 13, 2008, two days after body discovered: Detectives have told Caylee's mother's attorney that the body size and hair color of the remains recovered are similar to Caylee's and the discovery of the child's skull with duct tape on the mouth is telling a much more gruesome story. Later a less specific description is given, but we would use the more specific as opposed to the more general since "Detectives" of course are "investigative sources": Investigative sources told Eyewitness News duct tape was found still stuck to the child's mouth.

• AP story, aka “Schneider2 on May 24, 2011, day trial started and evidently before opening statements: Detectives said residue of a heart-shaped sticker was found on duct tape over the mouth of her skull.

So, Flyer22, it’s always good to have one’s facts straight before one engages in defacto edit warring behavior (i.e., you did not prove your contention on talk page before reverting back). See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'll be correcting it tomorrow, if you do not do so sooner. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As I stated below, I don't know why you are acting as though "detective" and "investigator" are two different things in this instance. My wording was not inaccurate because, for this matter, "investigator" means "detective" as the Investigator dab page show. I don't have to rely on a Wikipedia dab page. I know this because I have common sense, and because every reliable source out there about the term will show that they mean the same thing in the context that we are speaking of. Secondly, I stated "Investigative reports altered between duct tape being found near the front of the skull, and around the mouth of the skull.", which is true. Again, what type of detectives do you think were at the crime scene looking at Caylee Anthony's skull? Private detectives? "Investigators" and "detectives" mean the same thing in this instance because we are not talking about any of the other types of investigators on that dab page. All that dab page shows is that using the word "investigators" is ambiguous, and that we should instead use "detectives."

Yes, we do go by reliable sources. But we don't have to go by reliable sources word for word. When "detective" and "investigator" are the same thing, we can use either wording. The same goes for when a source says "Men find women's asses most sexually appealing" and we say "Men find the buttocks of women most sexually appealing" because that is more encyclopedic.

So, Carolmooredc, it is indeed always good to have one's facts straight before one engages in silly editing and complaining on the talk page. You won't be "correcting" anything in this regard. You changed my wording, I changed yours without actually reverting you (there was no revert, seeing as my original wording used "Investigative reports" ). If you revert to use "investigators" and "detectives" as though they are two different things, I will likely revert you. You can take this to one of the noticeboards, and see how much support you get for playing silly semantics. Thanks.

Oh, and stop making new sections for every little thing. This could have easily been discussed in the lower section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: As I stated below, this edit should take care of your play on semantics. It uses a source that clearly says "Investigators say a piece of silver duct tape had been placed over Caylee's mouth." and, since you love trial sources so much, a source that clearly says "Adhesive in the shape of a heart was found on a corner of a piece of duct tape that was covering the mouth portion of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony's skeletal remains, an FBI latent print examiner [Elizabeth Fontaine] testified Monday in the capital murder trial of the girl's mother, Casey Anthony." I changed the wording to "investigative reports and trial testimony." But, really, "trial testimony" is not needed because it is an investigative report either way. Investigators stating this at trial is still an "investigative report" and "FBI latent print examiner" falls into the definition of "investigator" as well. Mentioning [so and so was stated at trial] before the trial paragraph is also sloppy.

Like I stated, your distinction between "detectives" and "investigators" is silly regarding the debated line. Various reliable online sources, such as this Orlando Sentinel source, use the words interchangeably. Almost just as many sources say "Investigators say a piece of silver duct tape had been placed over Caylee's mouth." or some variation of that as they do "Detectives say a piece of silver duct tape had been placed over Caylee's mouth." or some variation of that. It's nowhere close to original research to substitute words that mean the same thing. Wikipedia editors do that, and are allowed to do that, all the time. But now, thanks to your contesting things that need not be contested, that one line is covered by five different sources. It is now over-referenced, something you have complained about. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

The Caylee songs are like a memorial to her. Memorials aren't allowed under policy so maybe this section should be removed. I know some of you want it here but again, memorials aren't allowed per WP:Memorial. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That means do not write a memorial article about a non-notable person. If a memorial to a notable person is covered by a WP:RS, or if it's just noted such things exist (i.e., gravestone memorial, statue memorial, song/poem memorial) it's not an issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Corrected errors in duct tape entries

Below in italics is what was in there that I just corrected - mis-stating sources in a way that bolsters a prosecution perspective:
Lead:

• A Forensic team... - WP:OR since the reference used identifies the individuals as Orange County crime scene investigator Jennifer Welch and chief investigator for the Orange-Osceola County medical examiner Stephen Hanson.
• ... found that the duct tape was attached to the skull,... The source describes both as saying the duct tape was found “near the front of the skull.”
• and the Coroner reported that this duct tape had been wrapped around the child's nose and mouth before she died, making it the murder weapon. Nothing about a "coroner" is mentioned in that ref and no refs I’ve seen says the "medical examiner" used the word murder; she used homicide.
• [REF]http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/259603/ This raw URL is the Ref for the above. It is a report of Day 14 of the trial. Have rewritten per this and another source.

Discovery of the body section:

• Investigative Teams recovered duct tape which was hanging from Caylee's hair and some tissue left on her skull. [REF]http://www.wftv.com/news/18264817/detail.html As seen below, this raw url is the only ref for this description. It's an old 2008 ref and probably not quite what was described at trial. At least find a more recent ref.
• [REF]:Day 14: Photos of Caylee's skull make Casey Anthony ill, court ends early, Central Florida News 13, June 9, 2011. This ref does not describe that sentence at all and was removed
• [REF]:FBI expert found heart shape on Caylee Anthony duct tape, Reuters, June 13, 2011. Only mentions heart shaped sticker on duct tape and not placement of tape or hair.

I assume no one will revert back to obviously erroneous material and make sure info reflects the refs. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mixing old and trial evidence reports

At this diff Flyer22 put back a 2008 news report with refs from before the trial, something I specifically wrote was erroneous in this section. I believe we've said several times here that trial evidence is ythe best evidence and NOT old news reports and summaries. Now it would be ok if we are doing a historical review where we say "in 2008 it was reported" or "before the trial a reporter summarized evidence as." But mixing 2008 and trial sources like that, especially when it has heavy BLP implications, is really a problem. I hope we can come to a final agreement on this or its off to which ever noticeboard is most appropriate, whether WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a BLP issue. These edits,[4][5] clearly show that it's not just the prosecution and Garavaglia who support that duct tape was found around the skull's mouth. It's also stated in the Evidence section. I reworded the line to "Investigative reports altered between duct tape being found near the front of the skull, and around the mouth of the skull.", and that's true. Take it to the BLP Noticeboard, for all I care. You won't convince me that it shouldn't be in the lead. It's at the part of the lead about what was reported when the child's remains were found. What is erroneous is you suggesting that reporting it is a BLP issue. Flyer22 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, do you have trial evidence that says mouth or just 3 year old news reports? Maybe the word mouth was used at trial; I haven't seen it that I remember. When in doubt ONLY use trial evidence. As for BLP, if mouth NOT used at trial and the article falsely provides impression it was and that the jury ignored "mouth" evidence, it obviously is a BLP problem. So please answer the question = why not just use trial evidence (unless historical review) instead of mixing possibly erroneous 3 year old news report with trial evidence?

However, I think WP:RS probably more appropriate anyway, just mentioning the BLP implications. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is...that part of the lead is about what was reported when the child's remains were found. Duct tape being around the child's mouth was reported when those remains were found. Garavaglia also stated in testimony that duct tape was around the child's mouth, at one point saying, "There is no child that should have duct tape on its face when it dies." She does not say "mouth" in that line, but her entire testimony is clear that she was speaking of the mouth. The prosecution also stated "mouth" and suggested suffocation by duct tape more than once at trial, which this Hightower source you moved up shows. So why you are trying to use the "what was stated at trial" argument to suggest that "duct tape around the mouth" shouldn't be used in the lead is beyond me. Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And you know that "duct tape over the mouth" was used at trial, which is why you added the following line (and additional information) to the Witness testimony section: The defense called two government witnesses who did not support the prosecution's assertion that duct tape was found over the child's mouth area.

As for the source, I added two sources (one from 2008 and one from 2011) backing the initial "duct tape over the mouth" report. Though, yes, the one from 2011 is reporting what was reported in 2008. If you are suggesting that those sources aren't reliable, you are wrong. One wasn't added by me (I simply fixed it from being a bare url), but it counts as a reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooredc: The quote you mention was stated by SlimVirgin and was referring to video evidence of the trial, nothing else. The original reference I put in does indeed mention duct tape found around the mouth. I did not change and it is still a valid source. Date of source does NOT determine the validity of it. Of course, it has been edited so I will have to find it once again if you do not already have it Flyer. Mugginsx (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If we are talking about the same source, it's right there after the following line, Muggins: "Two months later, on December 11, the child's skeletal remains were found in a wooded area near the family home, with a blanket and hidden inside a trash bag." Like I stated above, the two sources I attributed to the duct tape line are accurately reporting what investigators stated that day. Reports were always altering between "duct tape being found near the front of the skull" and "around the mouth of the skull," which is why the prosecution latched onto that. Especially the latter part. Even on The View, as noted in the Defense, prosecution, and jury section, "[Jeff Ashton] additionally explained that if the jury did not perceive first-degree murder when they saw the photograph of Caylee's skull with the duct tape, 'then so be it'." He didn't always stress duct tape over the mouth. People weren't always specific. Just because they would sometimes say "duct tape on the skull" doesn't mean they didn't mean "mouth." It doesn't matter that we are using a 2008 source at all, especially since the prosecution asserted before, during and after trial that duct tape was covering the mouth of the skull. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me Flyer. Mugginsx (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22 wrote above re “mouth” evidence that the medical examiner does not say "mouth" in that line, but her entire testimony is clear that she was speaking of the mouth. The prosecution also stated "mouth" and suggested suffocation by duct tape more than once at trial, which this Hightower source you moved up shows.
I do not doubt that “Mouth” was said somewhere during the trial, but did witnesses say it? It’s WP:Original research for you to say that’s what they meant. If the prosecutors said it, add it for sure as their statement; but if NO witness stated "mouth," it’s just one more evidence of their sloppy case of accusations without evidence.
The fact that the accusation is repeated so many times before the challenge to the accusations really is problematic. But that shall be addressed futuristically.
However, the bigger problem remains the way the evidence and witness testimony still is presented in a rather jumbled form. I have let myself get side tracked from finishing off my timeline and anaylsis so will present all issues at once soon. (After finishing a chapter for a book about why there won’t be any social security and medicare when Casey Anthony retires. Hey, that’s the chapter title I’ve been looking for!!) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The exact words of Dr Jan Garavaglia, Chief Medical Examiner (or Coroner as called in some states) at the trial on June 10, 2011 can be found at U-tube titled "How Caylee Anthony Died - Dr Jan Garavaglia Dr. G ". Go to u-tube, put in: casey anthony trial+Dr. Jan Garavaglia at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybNUo2EM7b8&feature=related Timestamped AT 1:30, However, at the very beginning of the tape she states the four reasons for declaring this death as a Homicide:

1)The child was not reported to authorities immediately;

2)the body was hidden;

3) the child was found in a container;

4) Time stamped at 1:30 her exact words are as follows: "the last reason would be the duct tape located on the lower half of it's face. There is no child that should have duct tape on its face when they die". "There is no reason to put duct tape on its face after it dies."

PRINT SOURCES which specifically talk about the duct tape as to Dr. Jan Garavaglia and back up the video are as follows:

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/10/dr-g-describes-caylee-anthonys-bones

http://www.christianpost.com/news/caylee-anthonys-bones-chewed-by-animals-dr-g-maintains-homicide-51062/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20070588-504083.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-watches-time-lapse-video-caylee-decomposing/story?id=13811099

She does not state in court "the mouth" but "the lower part of her face". That is the official testimony.

As to Melik, police do not determine cause of death. They may speculate and they may be correct, but they don't determine it in an official capacity. Mugginsx (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Correct attribution to the correct source is all that we ask for here. However, in our enthusiasm for specifying who said what about where some people saw the tape that let us not forget that, per article: The defense called two government witnesses who did not support the prosecution's assertion that duct tape was found over the child's mouth area. The chief investigator for the medical examiner stated that the original placement of the duct tape was unclear and it could have shifted positions as he collected the remains.[7] Cindy Anthony testified that their family buried their pets in blankets and plastic bags, using duct tape to seal the opening.[78] Anyway, redundancies can be dealt with in future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your wording is not any better, which is why I tweaked it.[6][7] I don't know why you are acting as though "detective" and "investigator" are two different things in this instance. My wording was not inaccurate because, for this matter, "investigator" means "detective" as the Investigator dab page shows, and investigative reports did alter between duct tape being found "near the front of the skull" and "around the mouth of the skull." That's out there everywhere, as evidenced through the simple use of Google. If you wanted me to use a source for "near the front of the skull" during the time Caylee's remains were discovered instead of your trial source, I could have done that. Really, what type of detectives do you think were at the crime scene looking at Caylee Anthony's skull? Private detectives? "Investigators" and "detectives" mean the same thing in this instance because we are not talking about any of the other types of investigators on that dab page. All that dab page shows is that using the word "investigators" is ambiguous, and that we should instead use "detectives."

As for your saying, "I do not doubt that "Mouth" was said somewhere during the trial, but did witnesses say it?," that is exactly the point! Witnesses did state it. I made that clear above! Investigators (aka detectives), as reported by the reliable sources (and many others that can be gathered), stated that duct was on the child's mouth. That is what the two sources I attributed to that line state. And what Garavaglia stated was clear about "mouth" as well, as Mugginsx clearly shows above. Witnesses are witnesses. What was stated during trial is not the only thing that matters. And just because something was stated during trial, it does not make it more accurate. And for the last time, that part of the lead is about what was reported when the child's remains were found. It is perfectly acceptable to report that duct tape being around the child's mouth was reported when those remains were found. This is, after all, why the prosecution went forward with their suffocation allegation. They didn't make this up. It was told to them by investigators and Garavaglia. You speak of WP:Original original research when it does not apply here. Yes, I said "that’s what she meant" in reference to Garavaglia, because that is clearly what she meant in testimony, but I did not suggest saying that "she said mouth" be added to the lead. So you might as well keep your original research accusations to yourself. On a side note, you are really pushing WP:Common sense if you expect us to believe that "located on the lower half of it's face" when speaking of suffocation doesn't mean "nose/mouth," as the the prosecution alleged. If anything, you are the one perpetuating original research by making it seem as though "investigators" and "detectives" are two different things and as though investigators later changed their minds simply because two stated "near the front of the skull" instead of "mouth" during trial. No one is forgetting what else was stated of the duct tape; that other stuff simply doesn't belong in the lead. Does it belong in the article? Yes. Is it redundancy? No, because it's saying different things about the duct tape.

Your saying "The fact that the accusation is repeated so many times before the challenge to the accusations really is problematic" doesn't make a bit of sense because it is not presented "so many times" and there does not have to be a challenge to it any time it is mentioned. In the same way there does not have to be a challenge to the defense calling the prosecution's evidence "fantasy forensics." This is why things are "jumbled"...because you insist on putting witness testimony into the Evidence section to counter things presented within it, claiming BLP issues, which is quite idiotic. The section is called "Evidence." That means evidence gathered against Casey Anthony should go there. The defense's side of things does not have to presented there, and not doing so is not a BLP violation (you really need a better grasp on that term). I do not care for your opinion that "evidence and witness testimony still is presented in a rather jumbled form," and it's clear that most others do not either. If most people saw it as "jumbled" or hard to read, there would be a lot of complaints about that on this talk page. And, no, there haven't been. The only reason you keep complaining about it is because you don't like that all the evidence points to one person -- Casey Anthony -- and you feel that the prosecution has a "sloppy case of accusations without evidence," when most of America feels that exact way about the defense. But whatever. I still say that all the details about the evidence should not be presented in the Witness testimony section, whether we have an Evidence section or not. The Witness testimony section should be about what was stated during testimony or by the judge...period. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: As I stated above, this edit should take care of your play on semantics. It uses a source that clearly says "Investigators say a piece of silver duct tape had been placed over Caylee's mouth." and, since you love trial sources so much, a source that clearly says "Adhesive in the shape of a heart was found on a corner of a piece of duct tape that was covering the mouth portion of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony's skeletal remains, an FBI latent print examiner [Elizabeth Fontaine] testified Monday in the capital murder trial of the girl's mother, Casey Anthony." I changed the wording to "investigative reports and trial testimony." But, really, "trial testimony" is not needed because it is an investigative report either way. Investigators stating this at trial is still an "investigative report" and "FBI latent print examiner" falls into the definition of "investigator" as well. Mentioning [so and so was stated at trial] before the trial paragraph is also sloppy.

Like I stated, your distinction between "detectives" and "investigators" is silly regarding the debated line. Various reliable online sources, such as this Orlando Sentinel source, use the words interchangeably. Almost just as many sources say "Investigators say a piece of silver duct tape had been placed over Caylee's mouth." or some variation of that as they do "Detectives say a piece of silver duct tape had been placed over Caylee's mouth." or some variation of that. It's nowhere close to original research to substitute words that mean the same thing. Wikipedia editors do that, and are allowed to do that, all the time. But now, thanks to your contesting things that need not be contested, that one line is covered by five different sources. It is now over-referenced, something you have complained about. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is you are still mixing old and trial evidence reports in a hodgepodge of old alleged evidence, trial evidence, unnamed "investigators", identified investigators, etc. which is just illogical editing with negative WP:BLP implications. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is...there is nothing wrong with saying "Investigative reports and trial testimony altered between duct tape being found near the front of the skull and on the mouth of the skull" along with sources backing up that line, and unless you can provide a convincing case that there is something wrong with it, that wording or something similar to it will be staying. Your acting (or rather believing) that reporting what was stated by investigators when the remains were found is a BLP violation simply because the sources are reporting what was stated in 2008 is absurd. Your acting (or rather believing) that providing a trial testimony source backing the same thing is a problem because it is "mixing" is just as absurd, especially considering you added a trial testimony source yourself to this line that is about what was found in 2008. The only difference is that, when altering my wording, you made it seem as though investigators initially had it wrong about the duct tape and later changed their minds. More of your biased editing. And complaining about the investigators not being named? It does not matter that the investigators are unnamed. Plenty of news reports, for all types of cases, say "Cops stated this" or "Investigators stated that" without naming one person. And if they do, they name just one or two people (like the Orlando Sentinel source above). And fact is...various reliable sources state the same thing of these investigators at the Caylee Anthony crime scene. If you doubt the sources, that is not my problem. What is "just illogical editing" is your insisting that trial testimony sources or text should be included in a line about what was stated at the time the remains were found, which is the only reasoned I added "trial testimony" to the line. What is "just illogical editing" is your insisting that the sources must be from 2011 to report what investigators stated at the crime scene, especially since I have already proven that these things were also stated at trial and even added a trial testimony source stating the same damn thing. So, yes, go complain to the BLP noticeboard and we'll see how much support you get for suggesting that the above quoted line, which is reliably sourced, is a BLP violation. Your arguing "BLP violation" when you don't get your way or when trying to get your way is really tired, and you have long since made a mockery of what is and what is not a BLP violation.

Bottomline? You just don't like that "duct tape around the mouth" is supported at all. I can imagine the secret fit you had when I added Elizabeth Fontaine's testimony. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to start a new thread, but comments based on last couple days of editing of the article itself, as well as edit summaries. Things to be addressed in future when I finish up long delayed research:

• Order: what’s important is to have the evidence in a logical order - and the best is the order that the prosecution presented it at trial. Challenges to that evidence, be it questioning of the witness at the time, or later during the defense part of the trial, or presentation of new defense witnesses at that time, should stay with the subject mater. A proper introduction would make it clear that that was what you were doing.
• Casey's car smelled like a dead body had been inside it. Cindy Anthony said at trial that was just a figure of speech and not an exact description; that fact should be made clear earlier, rather than later. Similarly the mention that Casey’s friend said Casey told her she’d hit an animal in the road in late June and parts of its body were stuck in the grill.
• with a blanket inside a trash bag - or wrapped in a blanket inside a trash bag. Is this consistent in the article? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are still talking about the lead. I just responded a little higher in this section, in case you missed it. But on the topic of the lead order, SlimVirgin put the lead in order. I'm not sure how you can talk about its order when you are the one who included what investigators stated during trial in a line about what was stated by investigators at the crime scene. You've also mixed in trial testimony with non-trial things, making it out of order, which are things I have had to fix. And you certainly can't argue that Cindy Anthony saying Casey's car smelled like a dead body should not be in the lead or that it should be countered with her testimony that it was "just a figure of speech." That's like saying it shouldn't be in the Disappearance section or that it should be countered with that information there. It should not be. The lead is reporting what was stated by Cindy Anthony during her 9-1-1 call. Not everything that was later challenged by either the prosecution or defense needs to have the rebuttal there beside it. If we have a Disappearance section, it should be about what happened at that time. Not what was stated at trial. If we have an Evidence section, it should about the evidence found at the crime scene and gathered from the Anthony home. Not about witness testimony from the defense's witnesses. That is what the Witness testimony section is for. What you are doing is trying to make the entire article a rebuttal, claiming BLP violation when we point out such unneeded redundancy. The lead is for summarizing, per WP:LEAD. Not for including the entire case there. And the information in the sections should accurately reflect the sections' titles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Get it straight, I get annoyed about WP:Original research that violates WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Biographies of living persons. Are you sure you are not projecting your emotional states on to others?

As for what goes in and out, I'm sure all that will be discussed specifically and properly in most NPOV way in time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I have it straight. Others have stated the same or similar things about your editing. You already know this. But I'm sure, to you, they are "projecting their emotional states" onto you as well. You are always claiming WP:Neutral point of view and BLP violations where there aren't any. And aside from IPs adding in things, there's hardly ever been any original research in this article since I have been at it, except for maybe in your own head. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion

Please See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#User_Name:_ThisLaughingGuyRightHere

Mugginsx (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that something that was on my mind but never got around to mentioning here regarding the UserName "ThisLaughingGuyRightHere" was: if any editor wanted to add anything about the sparring between the defense and prosecution, including particularly "This laughing guy right here" incident, that the user name would become even more apparently a problem. Something to mull over. Perhaps User:ThisLaughingGuyRightHere would care to give us his (or her?) thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You already make this comment over at the RFC, is it necessary to make it here too? Also, to answer your question, I don't think that this minor episode during closing arguments are needed in the article, do you? I just don't understand why you are continuing to bite this new person. Please stop biting and harassing this new editor or I will have no choice but to bring you to a board. I hope we all understand each other now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the name and the incident are relevant to the article. While at this point I don't think the attorney sparring is that important, that doesn't mean someone else will not. They might even have good arguments several editors would agree with. Even "ThisLaughingGuy" (who is not prosecutor and soon to be published author Jeff Ashton). And we can only speculate what others, with only partial comprehension of the incident, might think of someone with such a name editing on the talk page. Some people are hyper sensitive about the death of a child and even sexual abuse of children and its aftermath. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Crohnie Gal: It's like beating a dead horse. No one really cares that much either way about the name. 3 administrators said it's not blockable. One thinks it's perfectly fine. Mugginsx (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's why one goes to an RfC to get an outside neutral, sensible and credible opinion. Asking here would just waste a lot of time evoking hysterical rants, like happened on LaughingJeff'sGuys talk page and else wheres. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

People Mag. adequate ref for two factoids

OK, I was wrong on People's "other agents" doing dye testing as opposed to Fontaine; also only People magazine mentions explicitly cross-examination. It's a perfectly adequate ref for those two factoids. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind both references being used. It's not something you needed to bring to the talk page since I didn't object to both being used. Yes, I initially questioned it and corrected the attribution, but I soon understood your reason for using both sources. You have been clear that you want to clarify who called who to the stand and what was stated to either the prosecution or the defense. I agree with that clarification. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No problema :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Though working on finalizing some material I did note this from CentralFloridaNews Day:20: Lorie Gottesman: The defense submitted Gottesman, a forensic document examiner for the FBI, as an expert in handwriting and document analysis. After a lengthy explanation of what she looks for when examining evidence, Gottesman said she found no evidence of a sticker or sticker residue on the duct tape found near Caylee's remains. Also ABC news does good job analyzing all relevant info on this topic phttp://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-trial-defense-casts-Doubt-heart-stickers/story?id=13855375 here]. Not worrying about it today, however. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)