Jump to content

Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10


Deletion of article because it is an ongoing case currently before a jury

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion is moot as case has been decided. Safiel (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I realise that this has been extensively discussed previously and it is now rather late in the day. Still, I think the principle is worth discussion.

I strongly think that this should not be an article in wikipedia. Encyclopedia's should not discuss ongoing cases for all sorts of reasons.

1) Many of the "facts" given in this article are merely newspaper reports. They can hardly be considered facts which have a sufficient weight to be quoted in an encyclopedia because the main process by which facts are established in legal cases (i.e. the verdict of the jury) has not yet occured.

2) Until a court of law has decided a case, discussion in the media should not interfere with due process. I think wikipedia should do what it can to maintain this ideal. What are the precidents for this? Have high profile ongoing murder trials been reported in wikipedia before?

3) The topic of an ongoing murder trial is fraught with emotional responses and it is VERY hard for authors to strike an objective perspective. Just having a long article here is an invitation for any and everyone to add there opinion which, in this case, is not what wikipedia is here to do.

As an example of the problems with having the current article, I do not think that the article even clearly states that the mother is innocent. It says "[Casey Anthony] continued to maintain her innocence throughout her trial." This looks at a cursory reading that her fate has now been decided. The issue of whether Casey Anthony is guilty should be in absolutely NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER in this article. Otherwise it could even be in contravention of the law, never mind the spirit of wikipedia.

I think there is a clear and simple response to this problem. This article should be moved to wikipedia news. A very brief article should be created on the limited pure and simple facts of the disappearance of the child. All mention of the ongoing trial and to the defendant should be confined to a single sentence which should reference the wikipedia news article.

In a few days or weeks, the facts will be clearer and most importantly due process will have been carried out. Surely wikipedia can hold off until then. It is hugely important. It is a matter of life and death.

If I knew better how to use wiki stuff I would do this immediately. Probably best because there may be a response to this I guess Chogg (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

#1 - sources are sources. Wikipedia relies upon sources for its reportage. In that light there is no such thing as "mere news reports." We attempt to maintain a WP:NPOV neutral point of view, without emphasizing any particular point of view over any other. The jury verdict does not change the reported facts, as they were reported at the time.
#2 - Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOTCENSORED). We neither promote nor hide information which is verifiable, as published in reliable sources. Yes, facts do evolve over time, but this merely anchors facts as understood to points in time. But to mitigate your fear that Wikipedia might influence a jury, presumably they are embargoed from reading Wikipedia, just as they are embargoed from reading newspapers. Also, Wikipedia is not special, that is, it holds no particular power that news sources lack, and therefore requires no special restraint.
#3 - Your assert that "I do not think that the article even clearly states that the mother is innocent." No, the article, like Wikipedia, takes no position on the guilt or innocence of anyone accused of a crime. We quote or paraphrase sources. Further, no, the article does not state "the mother is presumed innocent until proven guilty," because Wikipedia does not, as a policy, publish disclaimers (see WP:NODISCLAIMERS). The statement in the article is sufficiently well sourced, and I don't see how it implies that her fate has been decided in any way. It is certainly her right, and indeed her responsibility, to maintain her innocence, if indeed she is not guilty. That she has done so has been duly reported in reliable sources, and therefore stated here.
It's true that Wikipedia is not intended to be "up-to-the-minute news" (WP:NOTNEWS). This carries with it the idea of looking to stability and persistence of sourced material, not looking to the decision of a jury for some sort of permission to publish. In that light, this particular story has been going on for quite some time, and therefore can be justified as an article, listing the facts, evidence, and testimony so far, as reported in reliable sources.
--Lexein (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't delete. The article is about the victim, not the trial of her mother. To suggest this article will be used to determine the outcome of the trial is an incredible stretch of the imagination. The jury is sequestered as well as the alternate members of the jury. They are unable to view the article. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This article is a mess. It is horribly written, reads like a true crime novel written by a fanboy and delves deeply into trivia. That means it needs re-written, not deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has very clear rules on notability. This article clearly passes. Any attempt to delete the article will fail miserably. I suggest this discussion be closed as a non-starter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I feel sorry for the credibility of the wikipedian who might nominate this article for deletion. This subject attained notability long ago and of certainty an entry within this encyclopedia is appropriate. My76Strat talk 02:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The OP sinks the nomination himself by stating in point 1 that the info here derives from newspaper reports. If the editors have done their jobs here in regard to sourcing, there's nothing the jury should be able to learn here that they couldn't just as easily learn from CNN.com or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request from 174.126.128.113, 5 July 2011

In the opening statements, prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick is cited for the prosecution.In fact, it was Jeff Ashton. Please correct.

174.126.128.113 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article semi-protected? Mugginsx (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected by administrator Fastily (talk · contribs), due to persistent vandalism. It will expire on the 14th. This only affects new and anonymous editors... Established editors should still be able to edit the article without a problem. --Elonka 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.188.143.243, 5 July 2011

On July 5th, 2011, Casey Anthony was found not guilty to murder. She was found guilty in providing false information to police investigators.

Not done: This is already stated in the article in a much more presentable way in terms or grammar.  JoeGazz  ▲  20:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

68.188.143.243 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.33.169.207, 5 July 2011

Found not guilty on july 5th.

74.33.169.207 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Not done: Already stated.  JoeGazz  ▲  20:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 2

Can the template {{current}} be added? 92.25.60.165 (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Already done  JoeGazz  ▲  20:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrongfully acquitted?

The opening paragraphs of this article state that Casey Anthony was wrongly acquitted. I admit I may be the only person in the US who has not been following this trial closely, but I would say that definitely violates NPOV, wouldn't you? 205.213.240.8 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, I see it's been fixed. 205.213.240.8 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Publicity section -- updating

Will someone significantly expand this section? There has been a lot of publicity since then, including the publicity happening now regarding public reaction to the verdict. The section currently deals with the publicity before the trial. I also feel the Publicity section should come last. But I see that this article has recently been tagged as needing copyediting and better formatting, so I feel this will be dealt with soon. I'll probably help out later. I first looked at this article some days ago (though I have known about this case since the beginning) and felt that it needed a little reformatting (the Publicity section) and more of an expansion. There's a lot more that should be added to this article, period, in my view. I'll probably help out later. I first looked at this article some days ago, but didn't feel like addressing this then. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.65.83.88, 5 July 2011

but guilty of lying and providing false information to the police

Should be... "but guilty on four counts of lying and providing false information to the police."

173.65.83.88 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done: She wasn't found guilty on lying, she was found guilty on providing false information.  JoeGazz  ▲  20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we get some source for this?

1. Heart-shaped stickers were also recovered by investigators.(where?) 2. According to an FBI laboratory email, a heart-shaped outline was originally seen on the duct tape that was recovered from the mouth area of Caylee's skull, but the laboratory was not able to capture the heart shape photographically and could no longer see it after the duct tape was dusted for fingerprint processing. - SOURCE? (there was no duct tape on the mouth area- simple because there was no mouth!) 50.9.109.170 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

for example> is it 1 year and 1000 for each count, like it says, or 1000 dollars for each count, and one year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Very poorly written

Not sure what wikipedia's quality standards are, but this article is boderline incomprehensible at times... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.51 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

With your informative criticism rife with examples and suggestions for improvement, it should be up to your standards in no time. 72.175.176.33 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to support the IPs claim that the article is not comprehensing all the facts of the case properly. I think the article is in need of shape up and some re-writing as it is one of the biggest criminal cases and trials its not worries to find good sourcing. It could be better overall.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I would do a little proofreading on the page (I don't really know much about the case itself, apart from the basics, but could help with the grammatical errors and such), however, I can't edit it, even though I'm a registered member. Should I file I request for it to be unprotected? For one, at the top of the page it asks with help with making it more cohesive, but people cannot edit. Also, as it is an ongoing case, unregistered members may have useful information to add in when such information is released. I realise that the child's mother has been found not guilty, but that doesn't mean that the investigations, etc, are over. Thanks. PlagueRattyRat (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The article has been significantly fixed up since that tag was placed on the article, and we're still refining things now. I definitely feel this article should not be unlocked for IP editors; there will be a lot of vandalism and unsourced additions being added. Most IP users are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, and will simply be adding things without sourcing. I'd rather the hype prominently die down before allowing IP editors to edit this article. And even then, I'd prefer it stay semi-protected. Flyer22 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the referral to 1st-degree Murder as "murder one." If this slang was intentional, is should have been written within quotation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.14.242 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


The article should make it clear that this case was only famous in the U.S. and not internationally. Right now, it has too much of an America POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.248 (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's made clear in the lead that it was/is famous in the United States, and mentions nothing about internationally. It has "too much American POV" precisely for that reason. This article has also been significantly fixed up since this section was created. Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has some factual inaccuracies that are either not sourced, or when they are sourced are simply not backed by the sources linked to. This seems to be an attempt to slant the article. For example, when discussing the chloroform computer searches, the article states that they were conducted on "Casey Anthony's computer" which is not backed by the news reports which have stated that there were no chloroform searches on Casey Anthony's personal lap top, instead only on the family's desktop. Also, the article fails to mention that the searches were only conducted briefly in March of 2008, at a time when it's been reported that Casey was dating a fellow who posted on his MySpace page at the time that he used Chloroform on women. Without this info the article paints a false, or at the very least an incomplete, picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.49.13 (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the computer mention. The sources don't even say "Casey Anthony's computer." Either the person who added that was careless or was trying to indeed inject a slant into this article. The other stuff you mentioned should be added as well. Some sections of this article still need fixing up, so bare with us. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OJ Simpson

"The trial has drawn comparisons to that of O.J. Simpson for the killing of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman.[67]"

This adds absolutely nothing to the article. Either expand on it, explaining why the comparisons are significant and worth knowing about, or get rid of that line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.187.154 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I think this does add to the article because the case is an example of an extremely high profile criminal case, as was that of O J Simpson. A little more discussion from the author would be helpful to make this point more clear. Chogg (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the poster...the content of this trial has nothing to do with OJ and adds nothing to the article. Saying its a high profile case like OJ's is both obvious and unnecessary IMO. I think the statement should be removed. (ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC))
It could be better compared to the Lindbergh kidnapping-and-murder trial. Trivial. Gone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
More like Susan Smith, but yes, the sentence does not add to the article and more significantly, detracts from it. It should not be included content. My76Strat talk 02:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the comparison to the OJ Simpson case is because of these factors:
  • The case was high-profile and reached an unusually wide audience even before it started.
  • The prosecution fails to prove its case with any hard evidence. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, however it's not enough on its own to exclude reasonable doubt.
  • The defense makes a great (in my opinion) closing argument about probable cause that explains the failure in the prosecution's case.
  • The jury acquits the defendant of murder.
  • There is a strong public sentiment that the defendant got away with murder.
I'm not familiar enough with the OJ Simpson case to fact-check everything myself, so feel free to pick apart my observation as you like. I just know that the media is making the comparison a lot recently. --Tathar (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Take out OJ Simpson comparison. The O.J. Simpson Case was FULL of forensic evidence. The jury for whatever reason simply ignored it. It is called Jury Nullification when the jury ignores the facts. Sadly, this case was the perfect murder in that there was no witness, and no forensics. Florida is simply a beautiful Swamp with beautiful buildings in it. It is a perfect eco system. Nothing was left of poor Caylee to test except the bones for mitrochrondial DNA. The hair banding science was groundbreaking and unacceptable to the jury. Whomever killed Caylee simply got away with it. That is the only substative comparison to the OJ Simpson case. Mugginsx (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The OJ Simpson comparison is extensively sourced in the Public and media reactions section. I'm not sure how it was included before, but it is properly included now and should not be removed, as it is a significant part of the public outrage regarding this case. It is not up to us to say "there are no comparisons" and "there is only a small comparison." The public and media say it reminds them of the OJ Simpson case, which is backed up by various reliable sources and is reported on daily. Not to mention, it has been thoroughly compared in terms of media attention, public fascination and ratings. So, yes, it belongs in this article. It's not like this article talks a lot about it anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing white woman syndrome

Please discuss here before removing the link to Missing white woman syndrome, as I'm adding this page over there and you'll create a dead end. 24.144.51.16 (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, but that will the upset the agenda-minded editors on here. To justify the hype this is from the UK's BBC on the circus surrounding this sad case.[1]

The fact it's a woman on trial has heightened interest, says Robin Simon, a professor of sociology at Wake Forest University in North Carolina, because the allegation breaks the maternal bond society expects women to have with their children.


"The media attention this has generated would not be as significant if it was a father murdering a child."

But the way this tragic case has become a "show" like any other is a sad reflection on modern America, she adds.
"A journalist was interviewing people in the line waiting to get into court. One woman said 'I can't wait to see it. This is the ultimate reality show.'

"And then she giggled. She didn't even perceive this as a real case with real people. It was sick.

"It's a spectacle, just something to watch like reality television."

Sure is a spectacle and this is therefore a fine example of the phenomenon known as Missing White Woman Syndrome driven because it's driven by a risible media providing nourishment (sic entertainment) to the low-brow mentality of modern America. And that's not just me saying, the academic called this circus "sick". Geez I would have love to seen this amount of interest shown when a black crack whore in Detroit left her kid outside to die in -20'C weather coz it was crying too much. But no! Pretty white is always might for the media, sorry I meant audience share.

"Expects"? Society notes that vast amounts of normal women *do* have such a bond with their children, even if some pathological underclass case (like the crack ho you mention) would not. It is highly unusual for a mother to act as this one was accused of acting, thus the interest. I think the media has a legitimate story here, and the article should reflect that view, rather than the one presented here.

About your racial issues: a majority of the underclass is white, just as most criminals are. It is true that non-whites are a larger minority of these groups as compared to the general population. 138.210.46.171 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the Missing White Woman Syndrome is still absent from this article! Now the verdict is in, it seems more pertinent than ever to include this trial in that context. I mean in my opinion, it all came down to the jury not believing a nice looking, primly dressed (in the courtroom) 25-year-old white woman could have killed her adorable toddler. Pure and simple. However if she were Black, Asian or Hispanic then I think it would have been a quiet trial and she'd been convicted shortly after the jury had heard the words, mother, body, her fault. So ys this article is the epitome of MWWS and a link should be added to the article. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.141.141 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone removed the link without discussion on the talk page. There are some sketchy editors on this site and I don't feel like arguing with the ignorant so I will leave it alone. This is a textbook case of MWWS, that much is impossible to deny, but there are agendas and prejudices at play that I haven't the time or energy to oppose. A message to whoever removed the link: Casey Anthony is not going to sleep with you, there's no need to cleanse her Wikipedia article of unflattering links. 24.144.51.16 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Concerns about the quality of this article

I will list several concerns I have with this article at the current revision.

  1. I cannot follow this article structure as is erratic and seems to jump from place to place in recounting events.
  2. The external links sections has quite the selection of external links that I am unsure are entirely relevant.
  3. A number of section seem to amp up irrevelevant details. Do we really need a section on past lawyers?
  4. There seem to be number of allegations with [citation needed] tags.

These need to be addressed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix/Delete Sentence, 5 July 2011

Below the Mugshot I think that its very inapropriate that under Status it says that she deserves the chair and calling her a bitch. That should be removed please. People have diffrent opinions but we still need to be respectful. 50.37.105.202 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict - damn

I did a massive ref cleanup, and apparently a _lot_ of edits went by underneath. Shall I do the cleanup or should the originating editors redo? I'll wait 10 minutes, then do it myself if nobody answers. --Lexein (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just restored the EL pruning. By the way I agree with a combo banner box, if anyone cares... --Lexein (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

I just have a question of the authenticity of her being malested as a child. Wouldn't she either come out two ways, the malestor or over protective so that the same thing wouldn't happen to her child as it did in her childhood? How does a mother not report a missing 2 year old or notice that the child was missing (whether you were busy or not)? A two year old is curious and requires a lot of attention... if it is quiet, then they are either into something or missing... This whole case is missing too much information not to further any investigation... to many holes... how do they feel right to releasing her? Or at least give her psychiatric treatment for her pathelogical lies... especially when she is convinced in her own stories told? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.84.42 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Born in Pakistan?

There are two references to her being born in the town where Osama bin Laden was killed, but one doesn't point to an outbound link, and the other doesn't say anything about that.74.83.234.78 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous, falsely cited claim

I find it very hard to believe Casey Anthony was born in Abbotabad Pakistan (see mug shot). Both citations for that little factoid are garbage. One simply says "born on a family trip to Pakistan", without ever citing a source, and the other links to a short news article about her spending her birthday behind bars, making no mention whatsoever about her birthplace. Completely ridiculous. Might as well say she was conceived in Osama's porn-room... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.198.1 (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

revise article title

this is just my opinion, but, seeing as the prosecution failed to give an accurate description in the matter in which Caylee died, the title of this article is highly presumptuous. As i read it, the article should talk about the cause of death, but as it's written at the moment, "The death was ruled a homicide and the cause of death listed as undetermined." Calling this article "the Death of Caylee Anthony" has the intonation that the matter of death is located in the article. Also, seeing as much of the article has to do with the surrounding trial of her mother, I'd like to have the title of the article changed to something along the lines of Casey Anthony murder trail, or something, anything other this original title. JBDRanger (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. When I first searched Wikipedia for this article, I put "Casey Anthony", or "Casey Anthony Trial" etc. And then this popped up. It's ok, but probably not the greatest wording, for the facts and circumstances of this matter. Maybe this should be titled "Casey Anthony murder trial". We'll wait for some consensus maybe. But I agree that the title (though could be worse) is not the best. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


I think it should be renamed to Casey Anthony Murder Trial. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. In fact of law, based on the jury verdict, it has not been proven that Caylee was murdered. Remember one of the lynchpins of the successful defense case is that the death was accidental. So to put "murder" in the title would be, legally, incorrect and probably a violation of WP: NPOV too. Also, the article is not wholly about the trial. I won't lose sleep over the article retaining the name "Death of Caylee Anthony" as long as the appropriate redirects are in place. I support the fact that "Casey Anthony" redirects not to the top of the article but to the biographical portion below; that said, depending on what Casey does post-trial it may be feasible to make a separate article for her. But not yet. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence: Air Sample

Under 'Evidence', the article reads: Air samples were to sent to University of Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
I'm pretty sure this should say "hair samples".
169.253.4.21 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! Fixed it --Zfish118 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Vass from Oak Ridge also testified on the air samples. [2] I can't recall how the air samples were tested or transported however. --Tathar (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hm, there WERE air samples tested for the presence of decomposition and chloroform so make sure you have it right before you go "correcting" it.G90025 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.50.191.102, 6 July 2011

Oak Ridge National Lab is not owned by the University of Tennessee. It is owned by the US Department of Energy.

68.50.191.102 (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Already done Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased Wording.

In regards to the following sentence in the "Arrests and charges" section: "She entered a plea of not-guilty to the charges that she killed Caylee." I think this would be better written as... "She entered a plea of not-guilty to the charges of felony murder." Also, why is there not a Casey Anthony page? Why does the query "Casey Anthony" yield "Death of Caylee Anthony"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishfairy123 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right on your last point. Probably a good idea to rename this either to Casey Anthony trial or to People vs. Casey Anthony. Dunno though what would happen if they find new evidence/suspects. –HTD 06:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The prosecution can't reopen the case to charge her again because that would be double jeopardy. The only way this case can be reopened is if they find a new suspect, and after this much time and this little physical evidence, I don't see that happening. Crystal ball aside, the Casey Anthony trial is notable in its own right now, and even if it's not, it's been compared enough to the OJ Simpson case for its notability to not be entirely from Caylee's death. Therefore, any future suspects wouldn't have an impact on whether a separate article would be appropriate on Casey Anthony. I'd support a split to Casey Anthony trial or similar and link from here if someone proposes. --Tathar (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if the scope of the article will change if they do find new evidence/suspects. If it's already at Casey Anthony trial and they do find something new, where would that new info go? That's the question, although if it the title is to be retained we'd not have a problem where to put new info, aside from creating a new article. –HTD 14:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a question for the WP:CRYSTAL ball. If it happens, we can consider it when the time comes. It hasn't happened yet, so we don't worry about it yet. --Tathar (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The case is closed and there will not be charges against anyone, nor will they bother to look. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 137.138.104.214, 6 July 2011

The beginning of the article states: "Caylee's skeletal remains were discovered December 11, 2008, six months after she was reported missing by her grandmother, Cindy Anthony." Further on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony#Discovery) the article states that "Caylee Anthony was reported missing to the Orange County Sheriff's Office on July 15, 2008". This shows that she was discovered five months after reported missing, not six (july-december).

137.138.104.214 (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Done It is now corrected. I think whoever put it in calculated from when she went missing not when she was reported missing. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why is the Timeline of case section needed?

Such a timeline section is considered unencyclopedic, and I doubt it will last very much longer in this article. But if someone can justify it being in this article and clean it up, I might not be too opposed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a guideline regarding timelines in an article? I agree that - generally speaking - timelines aren't good content in article like this. OTOH, having a separate article on the timeline I think is a great idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that there is a guideline that specifically addresses this, unless we mean WP:TRIVIA. Because right now, that is trivia and needs to be removed in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be removed or moved elsewhere. It is not a "list of miscellaneous information" (quoting WP:TRIVIA), but rather a highly structured collection of events relevant to the case, presented in chronological order. As someone who doesn't follow American news closely, I thought it was the most useful part of the article when I came to Wikipedia to learn about this. I applaud your boldness and willingness to improve Wikipedia, but in this case I believe the timeline should be reinstated. In fact, I don't even think this fits the definitions at WP:TRIVIA. I will restore the text for now, per WP:BRD, and suggest a consensus be reached here before further action. --Waldir talk 22:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not needed whatsoever in my opinion, Waldir. No other article on Wikipedia dealing with a murder case has such a section, at least not in list form. It's trivia to me because the timeline of the case should already be covered by the body of the article. Not as some list in the article. And it's already tagged as WP:LISTCRUFT. It is also largely unsourced. You need to find a way to incorporate that material into the relevant sections or create a separate article for it. I'm opening this up to WP:RfC below. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Timeline in the article?

There is a dispute about whether or not the Timeline section currently in the article should be there. The first argument is that the timeline is "a highly structured collection of events relevant to the case, presented in chronological order," and that it may be the most useful part of the article for someone who doesn't follow American news closely. The opposing argument is that it is not needed (at least not in list form), because it is WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA, seeing as all this information should already be in the higher body of the article or integrated into the relevant sections. The current list is also largely unsourced. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The timeline certainly seems useful considering how much happened in three years, and I would propose a split over a removal. As for sourcing, someone should get to work on sourcing them then. Also, trivia is a random assortment of facts without any logical progression, while a timeline is by necessity well-organized chronologically. I say Keep the information, but Split into a separate list page linked to from this page. --Tathar (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggested a split already, but no one has taken the initiative to do so. The reason I haven't is because it shouldn't be up to me to create a split, and I like creating decent or good articles. That list would need to be sourced first, and I certainly don't feel like sourcing all that. I've already written most of the Public and media reactions section. Basically, yes, I still see the list as trivia in a way, because I'm not sure all that information is needed. And like I stated before, it should already be covered in the relevant sections. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep To say that a timeline is "un-encyclopedic" is simply an opinion, and is not a rule or policy ANYWHERE stated in Wikipedia itself. There's no hard-fast rule or dogmatic thing against "timelines". (It's as if something is stated many times, it somehow becomes true, though there's no actual evidence supporting it. Opinion or personal taste is not policy or fact.) There are timelines in a number of Wikipedia articles. In fact there are whole articles that are just timelines of events (history of phones, French Revolution, accidents, etc etc). And this situation arguably needs a chronological order of events for easy and quick reference, AS WELL as regular prose. The timeline needs work and maybe some trimming or clean-up, no doubt, but it arguably should stay. And there's no solid WP basis or hard policy stating "they're not encyclopedic." They are to some extent, and are of some benefit for reference and dates. IMHO. cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Split. Most of the timelines I have seen around Wikipedia only exist because they are a part of poor articles. When timelines are listed in good or featured Wikipedia articles, for example, they usually are not in list format, and are certainly not that long. There are some things in the current list that are just trivial, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment. That I can agree with. There are some less important factoids in the listing. That can be pruned or trimmed out. But my point is that overall a listing timeline is arguably needed for quick and easy reference, for both casual perusers who may not have time in the moment to mill through the body of the article, or even serious researchers who want quick dates and events for certain reference. Meaning, that it's already understood that a lot of the stuff (though not all) in the timeline is more or less mentioned already in the prose body part of the article. DOESN'T MATTER. Because again the point is for easier or quicker reference to the dates and events. In some summation too. But even so, though I agree that some of the stuff listed may not be all that needed, most of it is. And it's useful. As Waldir stated above, some people may find it THE most useful and helpful part of the article, just like he did when he researched this topic on Wikipedia. It has benefits, in other words. Also, you said that "most" of the timelines that you saw on WP articles were in "poor articles." Well, I don't know, maybe so, but that's also a matter of opinion. I've seen some in good articles too. And some are WHOLE articles, just as timelines, that people really like. So it depends. But again, the overall point is that timelines arguably have benefit and use for quick reference for dates and events, and summation. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hashem sfarim, it's not an opinion when I say, "Most of the timelines I have seen around Wikipedia only exist because they are a part of poor articles." That's what I saw and still see. And especially in articles dealing with fiction, they are almost always thrown out when trying to bring an article to good or featured article status. As for this article, in dealing with real people, my statement in the section following this one sums up my feelings about it: "I am not convinced that the Timeline section should be in this article. There shouldn't even be a Timeline section, in my opinion. It should all be in the relevant sections of this article. That's where people should have spent their time putting this material. If they had, this article would not currently have so little detail in it about the happenings in the trial. And if I get a good chance, that is where it will go, if that material is not split into a separate article first. If Timeline sections were 'generally a good supplement and useful summation for article topics like this,' then they would be in most Wikipedia murder articles. They are not, however, especially when it comes to list form." It DOES MATTER if the material is already in the article. If this material were already covered in the relevant sections, I guarantee that there would hardly be anyone arguing to keep this timeline. Why does it have to stay in this article? Why can't one of you arguing to keep it simply split it off into its own article and free this article up for more kilobyte space? Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Flyer22, while I do appreciate your work and your points on this article (a lot of which I have agreed with), my point about "DOESN'T MATTER" that a lot of the info that may be in the Timeline section also may be (somewhat) covered already in the rest of the article is that is kind of a "duh" point and ALREADY UNDERSTOOD, but that the purpose of a timeline section or chronological table is for EASIER AND QUICKER REFERENCE...and summation. I mean, will you totally disregard Waldir's words, as one example, of how when he searched WP for this topic, he was drawn to the Timeline section and felt it was the most useful part of the article in gathering facts and data, on this subject? No one is saying that the prose part doesn't have different benefits and importance. Just saying that in this case there's NO REAL NEED, per se, to get rid of the timeline section and summation. It's not hurting the article. But, IF ANYTHING, adding some benefit and useful reference and research points to it. It helps, not harms, the article. And people find it handy and useful. (And the kilobyte space in this matter is really not that significant...) And it's easy reading. So what's the big problem with it? It's not hurting the article here, and has not hurt other articles like the Chilean mining accident or other things. Also, the nature of this case and topic almost demands a timeline. Just the way the case has worked out and developed since June 2008. Peace. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hashem sfarim, thank you for appreciating my work. I appreciate yours as well, and for speaking to me politely about this. Such work is what I'm trying to do now for this article. I honestly don't believe that if this article were ready for good or featured article status and were nominated as such, the Timeline section (as it is now) would survive. Many editors would be arguing to throw it out or incorporate it into the relevant sections. If all of the information were already in the article, it's a guarantee it would be thrown out. I know this from experience. Wikipedia generally doesn't have chronological timelines simply "for easier and quicker reference...and summation." I'm not trying to disregard or ignore Waldir's opinion. I'm just trying to get across how Wikipedia generally sees a matter such as this. I don't believe it's an opinion because I've seen it enough times, and it's evidenced by the fact that most murder articles do not have list format timelines, or, for others, any Timeline section at all. To many Wikipedians, it is seen as "hurting the article." And as for article space, I do feel that this list is unnecessarily taking up space when it can have its own article. It just makes this article look longer, when it actually is not that big (per WP:SIZE), and gives more ammo to those arguing that Casey Anthony needs her own article. You ask how is it hurting this article. But I ask how is it hurting any of you to just go ahead and split it away from this article? Others are for that in this RfC, and you are not very opposed to it. So why not just go ahead and do it? Is having to source it and fear of deletion the problem? Readers will still be able to find it in its own article; we can point them there. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Flyer22, I understand your point, but I believe Wikipedia should first serve its readers, rather than its editors. I don't think readers care whether an article is featured or not, if it gives them the information they need as conveniently as they need it. Reading a large article in well-crafted prose does provide great insight, but if one needs a quick reference, a list format is more useful. That said, for all the benefits of a timeline format, I think I should be kept, but I see no reason it can't be kept in a separate page, provided that this article prominently links to it. If other editors think it shouldn't be on this article, fine. But removing it altogether is, in a way, hurting the interests of the readers. --Waldir talk 16:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying too, Waldir. But fact is...Wikipedia generally doesn't work in quite the way you are describing. You speak of serving the readers first, but that's what we're doing by thinking of them in trying to build good or great articles. Readers generally may not care about a Wikipedia article being featured, but they do care about the quality of our articles. That's been witnessed on the talk page (the Very poorly written section, for example), and any time someone talks about trusting Wikipedia as a source. Maybe we are serving ourselves first by usually being opposed to lists instead of prose (except for articles specifically designed to be a list), but that is in the hopes of improving the quality of Wikipedia and therefore the quality of Wikipedia for our readers.
In any case, we have not completely removed the list. It is now in its own article, and linked twice in this one. I don't know what you mean by "prominently linked," but such lists are supposed to be linked in the main article once at most. Not at any and every instance. In this article, we link it once at the top of the Case section, and once in the See also section. Readers will find this link, so there is no reason to overdo it. For example, we don't need a Timeline section in this article just to point people to the main Timeline article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep or split -- I don't mind this being split, as long as the information is kept. The case for its relevance (even if the content is also present in prose) has been stated above, so I won't repeat it. I just want to point out that it IMO this timeline fails to meet both WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT. See for instance the list of flags at Wikipedia:Listcruft#Meaning (I don't think this list falls into any of those), and see what WP:TRIVIA says (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trivia_sections)#What this guideline is not):
    There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:
    • This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
    • This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
    • This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.
For these reasons, I don't think the timeline should be removed -- at best, split into a separate article if that's deemed appropriate. --Waldir talk 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and convert to prose or split to "Timeline of Casey Anthony case" or similar title Either is fine with me, but it isn't acceptable the way it is now. Also, it'd be preferable to have sources for all the info in that section. Gary King (talk · scripts) 04:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, but chop No actual rule against it, but it should be chopped down. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, but provide citations - The information is useful and encyclopedic. Timelines are common in articles that describe historical sequences of events. It is not, yet, too large for the article, so I see no reason to split at this time. The format is not bad: a table may be cleaner, but would probably take up more space. Prose would be harder to read and more confusing. The major deficiency in the timeline, as is, is that the individual timeline events do not have citations (footnotes) that identify a WP:Reliable source ... that is essential, per WP:Verifiability. --Noleander (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, timelines are common in articles that describe historical sequences of events, but I never see Timeline sections being kept when most of that same material is already covered in the higher body of the article. I feel like the only reason most people are saying "Keep" is because most of this information is not already in the relevant sections. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep or split - if you change name as I indicated above, to something like, Death of Caylee Anthony and Trial of Casey Anthony then keep. If you split the article then put Timeline into an article entitled Trial of Casey Anthony.Mugginsx (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Timeline of Casey Anthony case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Article issues

Since this talk page has become very active, some of the previous dicussions have been buried. First, this article has an overload of detail. Far too much detail here. As already mentioned, that timeline thing is a mess and even the body of the rest is too detail. Just because we know something doesn't mean it should be in the article. Second, the tone is fan-boyish. It needs written like an encyclopedia article, not a true crime novel. A little while back, some clean up was done, but we are still a long way from the proper tone. We can start with those two issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is too much detail just split it. A notable topic like this can have multiple articles. Marcus Qwertyus 16:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Splitting it may not be the answer. Extraneous trivia is just that. We know Casey wore a (insert color) colored shirt last Thursday. Does it need to be in the article? Simply splitting it into smaller articles isn't the answer. Trivia is trivia and Wikipedia is not just a collection of information Just removing the banner because you disagree with it isn't the answer either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Tag bombing my ass. Some of those issues were already under discussion here. Did you even attempt to participate in any discussion? No. Did you even look? I doubt it. Identifying a problem is the first step in solving it. Ignoring it is NOT a step in the process. If you don't want to be part of the solution, fine. But stop being part of the problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, an article like this is just going to attract a lot of newbies. It is evitable. Rather than trying to clean it up now, it might be easier to wait a month or two (or whenever things die down) and then fix it when the signal-to-noise ratio improves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The article does not have "too much detail" in my opinion, with the exception of the Timeline section. Which should be removed. It is not needed, and is not how encyclopedias are formatted. Other than that, this article has too little detail in some aspects. There are Wikipedia articles here that have far much more detail than this and are good or featured articles. So I'm not seeing detail as the main issue. Cruft is. The death should probably be split from the trial anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The timeline should definitely NOT be removed. It should be either kept completely in the article, or split into a separate article (maybe), as a "timeline article", possibly (though I prefer keeping in this article). But the timeline (per the discussion above) is useful and beneficial for quick and easy reference for facts and dates. And summary of events. Not every casual reader has time in the moment to mill through whole article to get facts, dates, and events. A timeline is generally a good supplement and useful summation for article topics like this. Other than that, I agree with you that there is NOT "too much detail" in article. If anything, the article needs more elaboration in certain areas. Such as with the "closing arguments" sub-section, which is very incomplete as of yet, and needs some filling in and expansion of details. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Hashem sfarim, I am not convinced that the Timeline section should be in this article. There shouldn't even be a Timeline section, in my opinion. It should all be in the relevant sections of this article. That's where people should have spent their time putting this material. If they had, this article would not currently have so little detail in it about the happenings in the trial. And if I get a good chance, that is where it will go, if that material is not split into a separate article first. If Timeline sections were "generally a good supplement and useful summation for article topics like this," then they would be in most Wikipedia murder articles. They are not, however, especially when it comes to list form.
Niteshift36, I have removed your "multiple issues" tag twice now because I have reformatted parts of this article and the only problem I see with the article now, with the exception of needing more expansion, is the Timeline section. But even that is being worked on (a WP:RfC about whether or not to remove it from this article is even taking place one section higher). There are not "multiple issues" going on at this article anymore. It could probably use some copy-editing, as most Wikipedia articles (even some good and featured articles) do, but that is not so much of a problem in this case that it needs tagging. Having "too much detail" is not an issue either; having as much detail as possible on topics like this is usually encouraged. But, as mentioned above, this article is lacking much detail anyway. Plus, you are the only one still arguing that that the article has "multiple issues." And if most editors here see no "multiple issues," the tag should not be there. It's not like the tag should stay there until the editor who placed it is satisfied. Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Nor do they get removed just because one editor decides to WP:OWN the article and become the arbitor of all matters related. There is a discussion going on here. Instead of just declaring the issue solved, would it really be such an affront to you to let it actually stay there until the matter is resolved? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not playing WP:OWN. You are. You are saying that it must stay until you are satisfied with the article. That's basically what this is...because no one else sees these "multiple issues" you see. Since we don't, why should it stay there, especially when we have made attempts to tackle these "multiple issues" and don't exactly know what these "multiple issues" are? Why should we keep the article titled as problematic when we don't agree that it is? You ask me to just let the tag stay until discussion is over? Why can't you just let it stay removed until discussion is over? Until you prove to us that such a tag belongs there? While I declared the matter resolved, I didn't declare this discussion over. I could see a need for your tag if your concerns were still viewed as valid. But I don't believe that they are anymore. I tackled formatting issues, including trying to get that Timeline section out of this article (as that is also my main issues with the article). But as you can see in the RfC, most editors are saying, "Nope, not a problem having it in this article. It just needs cleanup." In fact, you basically stated the same thing, instead of voicing to cut it out completely. So, clearly, there are no "multiple issues." The only issue is the Timeline section, and that is what should be tagged. But now...editors are saying it's okay to have it in this article. Having "too much detail," which this article doesn't even have, is not an issue. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The article has too much detail for the title. The Timeline is worthy only in a seperate article which I believe would be mostly about the trial. Split the article. Mugginsx (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that the article has "too much detail for the title." All the information in this article, which isn't much in most aspects, has to do with the death of Caylee Anthony. I do agree with splitting the Timeline section, and so do others in the RfC. You or someone else should go ahead and split that out of this article. There's clear support for it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It is only you, because Mugginsx's reasons are different than yours. Mugginsx clearly specified "too much detail for the title." Mugginsx has also been actively supporting a change in the title or a split because Mugginsx feels the current article is too narrow for what we include in it. You, on the other hand, acted as though this article "has too much detail period," when it is relatively small in most aspects. WP:SIZE doesn't agree with you. And since the Timeline section has now been split, there isn't even the smallest thing left supporting your "multiple issues" tag. You thinking I own the article? Yeah, whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You need to count the days I've been at this article, which can barely even be counted as "a few." What I've done "for days" is significantly expand this article, when all you've done is bitch about it and demand things. You weren't bettering it at all. And as for trivia, yeah, that's the thing: There was not a lot of trivia in this article, other than parts of the Timeline section, which has now been removed. There is now nothing in this article I would call trivia. You say I've been owning this article because I've been the main one fixing and building it up "for days" and trying to engage others on the talk page? Yeah, whatever. It's clear you throw that word around when you don't get your way. You're not the only editor to do so. If I really felt I owned this article, I would have edit-warred over that Timeline section. I didn't. I took the time to listen to why some wanted it in this article. If I felt I owned the article, I wouldn't be compromising with people still. You were the one saying we must keep a tag up there until you were pleased with the article. So, yes, whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's a little late to jump in here with my comment, (had physical therapy then a pain pill) but I think that now that the title is more appropriate to the information contained therein, the Timeline is appropriate. It is especially important in an article that pertains to criminal acts and issues because the timeline shows a methodology to the actions which ultimately shapes the case. I would not recommend a timeline in many articles but this one is, I think, important. I wish all could get together and agree to put it back into the main article. Now that the article has been condensed and more cohesive there is certainly room for the timeline. My God, if you want to see some long articles, go to some of the articles of historical events in ancient and medieval history. I say, let us put the Timeline back in. It is a quick reference and most appropriate for a case about a murder. Mugginsx (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL, good point about long articles, Mugginsx. Hope you're feeling better. I've already brought up that this article is not that big and there are other articles much bigger than this one. It only looks big from the table of contents. However, I still don't feel that the Timeline section is needed in this article. The only thing that's changed is the title. Things have been added more than condensed. And I much prefer keeping the extra room we now have due the Timeline removal for something else, such as expanding the Case sections with some of the information found in the Timeline section. A lot of the stuff in that Timeline section should be in the relevant sections of this article, but reliably sourced. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
No, there's not "too much detail" in the article. There never was. Even now there isn't. As I said before, if anything there was NOT ENOUGH "detail" in the article, especially in certain areas, sections, and sub-sections. I just recently added needed info to the "Closing arguments" little subsection, and "added detail", that was sorely lacking there. With refs. (Also, I worked a wee bit more on the Timeline article...that has been separated out of the main article...and I did say that that I felt that was also ok, but not to be deleted completely of course, as it is a useful and worthy thing to study for many people). But this main article here, and this subject, with the enormous facts and issues involved with the whole matter and case, actually demands more "detail" and elaboration in certain key areas. What has happened in the actual trial itself needs some further additions and expandings. Though things are better now than a day or two ago. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Hashem sfarim. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Casey Anthony

There has been several attempts to turn Casey Anthony into an article rather than redirecting to this page. Because of the edit warring and vandalism I've fully protected said page as a redirect to here (as it was). Just letting everyone here know about the discussion brought up on the talk page linked above. WP:BLP1E may play a part in this decision. Killiondude (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple weeks ago, I thought about creating an article about Casey Anthony. I looked up WP:BLP1E and I think it might be OK to have to have an article about her given the tremendous amount of coverage given by reliable sources. Ultimately, I decided against it - not because of BLP1E but because it would be a nightmare to maintain such an article given the public frenzy around the topic. I think it should be mentioned that one of the key goals of WP:BLP and BLP1E is in preserving a person's privacy. Given the amount of media coverage and the fact that the trial was broadcast live on national TV, her privacy has already been shot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

keeping timeline if the title is changed.

I have no problem with the timeline but I think, in that case, it would be more appropriate to change the title to "the death of Caylee Anthony and the trial of Casey Anthony". If the present title is kept then I agree to the re-wording of the timeline to prose. The article is mostly about the trial at this point but if the consensus feels strong about keeping Caylee's name in the title than I would add the other words, "...and the trial of Casey Anthony" to the present title. The article seems to be shaping up that way anyway. It is not a biography of Caylee after all, it is really about what happened to Caylee and the trial of her mother in that regard. Just one opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Timeline section needs to be removed, per above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the Timeline section. If a Timeline section is felt as needed, then make an article about it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Felony Murder Charge

The article mentions that she was charged with, among other things, first degree murder. But it also says felony murder. I understand what felony murder is, but if the prosecution believes that she murdered the daughter, why would it be felony murder? Wouldn't it just be first degree murder? I thought felony murder was when someone committing a felony other than murder is responsible for someones death. Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.57.114 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that was some sort of mistake - she wasn't charged with felony murder from what I can discern. I've gone ahead and removed that from the lede of the article. Thanks! AzureCitizen (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course she was charged with felony murder - that is what is required for the death penalty in the State of Florida and other death penalty states. The prosecution was putting forth the scenerio that Casey put cholorformed duct tape on the child (that is the first felony - then, according to the prosecution, Caylee died as a result. THAT IS SECOND FELONY. This is what felony murder is and that is what she was charged with. In other words murder during the commission of another felony. Again, that is necessary for the DEATH PENALTY CASE in Florida and in most other death penalty states. This in also called a "Special Circumstance". Another example of Felony murder is if someone is killed during a bank robbery - the bank robbery is the felony the murder is the second felony, i.e., felony murder. http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/felony-murder.html http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/special+circumstances Mugginsx (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
We need to get very specific here. Casey Anthony was charged with (1) Murder in the First Degree, (2) Aggravated Child Abuse, (3) Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, and (4)(5)(6)(7) four counts of Providing False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer. That's it. Seven counts total in the indictment, and seven counts total on which judgment was rendered, of which she was found not guilty on the first three and guilty on the last four. Technically, Murder in the First Degree in Florida includes the crime of first degree murder plus the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree, Manslaughter, and Third Degree Felony Murder. The jury could have decided to find Casey Anthony not guilty of first degree murder and yet find her guilty of one of the lesser included crimes such as felony murder, but they did not. Therefore, it is untrue and inaccurate to lead with she "was indicted on charges of felony murder" and then "found not guilty of felony murder" the way the article is currently written. She was charged with murder in the first degree and unequivocally found not guilty thereof, which is what the lede should focus on. Lesser included charges which the jury did not elect to opt for as a matter of law could be explained further on in the body. If you'd like some references, take a look at the indictment here, the jury instructions here, and the verdict forms here. Unless you're convinced this topic merits further discussion, I'm going to restore my correction of the lede. Kind regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
AzureCitizen, no, you're actually SO incorrect it's incredible. There are two types of murder in the first degree in the state of Florida: Felony murder and Premeditated murder. Your very source even states: There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder. I watched CNN the entire time and they clearly stated she was being charged with felony murder which is why the prosecution was not REQUIRED to prove premeditation because Agg Child Abuse was the predicate felony. Please see Felony murder rule (Florida) and under stand what it is. However, it did not matter whether the jury thought it was premeditated or felony murder when they deliberated. I also find it ridiculous how we are discussing the matter here yet you decide to make improper changes WITHOUT reaching a consensus. If need be we can take this discussion to the administration notice of incidents and let them decide. I will argue this no further. Grim Littlez (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
AzureCitizen, Felony murder is NOT a lesser charge. You are factual correct that she was charged with first degree murder - but since there was a charge of a felony involved committed during the alleged murder it was called FELONY MURDER. I realize it is confusing but I assure you I know what I am talking about since I am a retired paralegal who used to work for a former Bronx District Attorney. If you have not seen a hundred headlines and broadcasts that state that she was charged with felony murder than you clearly have not researched the matter very much. There are different kinds of first degree murder and different degrees and in fact different degrees to all of the charges that were made.
If you cannot get your head around the meaning of felony murder which is first degree murder with special circumstances (i.e., the felony committed during the commission of the murder) than leave it out by all means but do not explain what it is because you are incorrect when you do. Mugginsx (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Grim Littlez and Mugginsx. We appear to be disagreeing over whether Casey Anthony was specifically indicted for felony murder, as that was what was originally stated prominently in the lede before I removed it. You are saying that she was, based on what you recall seeing in news headlines and on CNN. It is my belief that she was never indicted for felony murder as a primary charge. Please look closely at the indictment and note that she was charged with seven primary counts, of which felony murder is not one of them. The jury could have chosen to convict Anthony of felony murder as a lesser included offense, but they opted to find her not guilty of the seven primary counts and discarded the lesser offenses as well. If you believe that Casey Anthony was specifically indicted for felony murder, I would respectfully ask that you point out where that is in the official indictment document rather than from "hundreds of headlines and broadcasts" or "from watching CNN" for our source material. Similarly, the verdict forms left no doubt as to what the seven primary counts were, "as charged from the indictment". I'm sure you'd agree that it is important that we be accurate in introducing the charges in the lede. I would ask that you refrain from making statements such as "you are SO incorrect it's incredible" and "if you cannot get your head around the meaning," etc., as they are unconstructive and do not advance your arguments. Kind regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
*Sigh* You're not understanding. Second and third degree felony murder were one of the many lesser included felonies. First degree felony murder <---- read this before responding. Once again...I will explain very specifically: In the state of Florida there are two types of first degree murder: Felony murder and premeditated murder. The state chose felony murder BECAUSE Aggravated Child Abuse was the predicate felony. Basically they said that Casey committed aggravated child abuse and that when Caylee died, it was at the result of THAT predicate felony so that is why the felony murder tag gets put in place. The jury, however, does NOT have to have a consensus as to whether they convict someone of first degree felony murder or first degree premeditated murder because on the indictment it is basically the same degree, statute, and penalties. So in other words we are arguing semantics. I'm merely correcting you since you refuse to understand that first degree felony murder is not a lesser included felony... it IS first degree murder. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Grim Littlez, there is no disagreement over whether or not felony murder could be charged as first degree murder (rather than as a second or third degree lesser offense) pursuant to Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a)2 using aggravated child abuse per 782.04(1)(a)2h. However, the State's indictment specifically charged Anthony under 782.04(1)(a)1, premeditated and intentional first degree murder, and omitted any reference to first degree felony murder per 782.04(1)(a)2. Hence, Casey Anthony was not indicted for first degree felony murder. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
She was not charged with premeditated murder. I'm done arguing with you. I don't care what latimes or whatever "source" you provided. It never stated she was charged with premeditated murder. First degree murder was the charge... the prosecution's direction was felony murder however then later switched to premeditation in the closing arguments. It would not have mattered if the jury found her guilty of either since murder 1 is murder 1. That is all I'm stating. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The relevant sources I provided were not news reports or articles like the LA Times - they were links to the PDF documents themselves (the indictment released by the prosecutors office; the actual verdict forms presented to the jury, etc). Read the indictment closely, bottom of page 1, count 1, it's 782.04(a)1, not 782.04(a)2. Take note that 782.04(a)1 is for when someone intentionally kills someone in premeditated fashion, while 782.04(a)2 is for felony murder. Both are first degree, but she was specifically indicted for the former, not the latter. If you're "done arguing", that's great; several posts back you wrote "I will argue this no further". AzureCitizen (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Photo

The photo at the top of the page says "Caylee in bed before her death." Can we remove "before her death." It's kind of obvious. Tomjoad187 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why the photo was removed by J Milburn. We can understand the case without seeing her? The same can be said for a variety of other instances on Wikipedia, such as in the case of James Dean, etc., etc. So, clearly, knowing what the deceased subject looks like is considered to significantly enhance the audience's understanding of the topic. Furthermore, she is deceased. There isn't even a WP:BLP issue. The image should be restored, in my view. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Another example is Matthew Shepard. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Glad to see you reverted before any discussion took place. You know, I don't think it should be used. I'm not going to make a long policy argument or cite 30 different articles. We should just realize that it's not right. We all understand the child was killed without having to steal a picture of her and blah blah blah about fair use loopholes. It's just wrong. Forget wikipedia policies and do what's right. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I really don't need the attitude. I can revert and then take it to discussion. That's general practice on Wikipedia. WP:BRD. J Milburn clearly had no intention of discussing by removing it and then simply moving along. He could have at least started a discussion about it on this talk page. At least I started one. There's nothing you can cite that makes me think "it's right" that this article shouldn't have an image of this deceased child, especially when I can cite well over 30 different Wikipedia articles where images of the deceased are used. It "not being right" is your opinion. I'm not sure what moral stance you are taking by saying it's not right to show an image of this deceased child, when her image is shown everywhere in the media already and it is not seen as something horrible, exploitative or bad. If we want to play the "forget Wikipedia and do what's right" argument," then having an image of the victim of this horrible injustice (what was done to her) is the right thing. Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You've exhibited plenty of attitude, along with your WP:OWNership of the article, so I truthfully don't give a rat's furry butt if you "need it" or not. And guess what Captain Obvious? I clearly said it was my opinion and not based on policy. So did I, or anyone else, need you to tell me that it was my opinion and not based on policy? The fact that you did it is an act of incivility in itself, so spare me your whining about attitudes. The fact that you look at it as "playing" and other silliness shows that you aren't even capable of understanding what my position is. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Nope, I have not exhibited plenty of attitude, or ownership of the article. Attitude, you say? I'm the one who came to you politely asking you to specify your "multiple issues" problems with this article on the talk page. And then, just because I removed "your tag" (after trying to tackle these issues, the ones that were clearly a problem), you started acting snotty. Just like you are acting snotty and immature right now. You did not make it clear that this was your opinion, unless we count your "It's just wrong. Forget wikipedia policies and do what's right." statement. You said, "I'm not going to make a long policy argument or cite 30 different articles," which signaled to me that you were saying you could. It's not like people can always tell when someone is being sarcastic or serious over the Internet, since we are communicating through typed words only. And for the record, "playing an angle" (and, yes, that is what you are doing) does not mean "playing" in the true sense of the term. At least we can agree that I'm not capable of understanding what your position is, because saying a picture of a small, deceased child should not be used (as though it is horrible, exploitative or bad), when we use picture of deceased adolescents and adults as the main images in Wikipedia articles all the time is beyond my understanding. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you have displayed attitude and ownership. Of course you don't think you have. While you parse quotes out of context, you forget the important quote: "It's just wrong. Forget wikipedia policies and do what's right" That is an obvious statement that it my feeling wasn't based on a policy. No, it's your overwhelming need to control this article. And spare me the "I was polite to you" BS. I started the discussion you requested and you declared it solved in a matter of hours, before the matter was fully discussed. Do whatever you want with this article. I might as well say that because you're going to do it anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't care that you think I have displayed attitude and ownership, because I'm sure other editors here can attest that I have not. You're right that I don't think I have, per what I stated in this section and above in the #Article issues section. I didn't "forget the important quote." I clearly stated it above. However, I also stated your own words which suggested that you could cite policy and examples. I responded to that, because, as I stated, "It's not like people can always tell when someone is being sarcastic or serious over the Internet, since we are communicating through typed words only." I was also obviously fully aware that your statement was/is an opinion, which is why I basically stated that your opinion by itself (not backed up in Wikipedia guidelines or policies) is not a valid reason to exclude the image. I'm not going to do what you think "is the right thing" to do, and not when I don't consider what we're doing as "the wrong thing" to do. Nope, no BS on my part. You still didn't outline any issues with this article! Other than basically implying that the Timeline section was the only problem. Simply saying the article has "too much detail" (when it doesn't) and "trivia" in it tells us nothing. Further, what is "trivia" to you clearly is not "trivia" to the rest of us (with the exception of parts of the now removed Timeline section). That's why you need to outline your issues (as in state them specifically). Not that vagueness you gave us. But thank you for your blessing in letting us who are actually contributing to the article continue on without you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic...why would you discuss a crime without showing who the victim was? Seriously. chris†ianrocker90 22:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony

Though I'm disgusted by this case and the outcome, I think someone should create a page for Casey Anthony. There's an infobox as well as information on the trial. There's available childhood information on Casey Anthony, as given by the trial and her parents George and Cindy Anthony. Please contact back about a possible page. TomUSA 21:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this article, I don't feel that a separate article for her is needed. If this article were truly huge (and, really, it's not even big yet), then I'd see a reason for the split. But other than that? No. She is not notable outside of this case. And per WP:Notability, she is supposed to be in order to have her own article. Most of what is in this article would largely overlap in hers. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Please join the discussion here.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

this is wrong

She was not found by her grandmother cindy. she was found by an electrition outside in the woods by Casey Anthonys home. thats where she and her remains were found.

Discovery

In the "Disappearance and Discovery" section, the details of the skeletal remains are not described. Just some trash in a trunk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.106.189 (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Did the jury understand that they did not have to impose the death penalty?

Juror #3 said, "But it's someone else's life, and if I'm wrong and I kill someone else -- I can't live with that." The suggests that the jury may have held a misunderstanding. In Florida, a jury is able to recommended a life sentence instead of death. A reporter on AC360 had a similar impression, saying, "Did the jury really understand their role?" and suggested the judge may have been at fault. This alone may not warrant inclusion in the article, but more substantive references to this issue may be out there. Xerxesnine (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be OR to make such an assertion right now based on that statement. More indepth interviews may take place in the future. AzureCitizen (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This should have been a bench trial. The jurors clearly did not understand the law. It is complicated in a circumstantial case. I also think that a death penalty case is always a difficult case for jurors to decide. Mugginsx (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Trial by jury is a right; given the facts of this case and the prosecution putting the death penalty on the table, it would have been foolish for the defense team to ask for a bench trial. AzureCitizen (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That is not what I meant. If my life were hanging in the balance, I would much rather put it in the hands of a judge. This should never have been a death penalty case. Not enough evidence to meet the criteria. A jury is too unpredictable. Most of the time, the defense team thinks about how much money they will make and the publicity they will get - which is also about money, and lastly, they think about the defendant. To the prosecution and the judge, it is about the truth and the proof. Of course the defense team would not want a bench trial. Mugginsx (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It would be best if we stay on topic then as our common goal here is to improve the article; opinions that you'd rather face a judge yourself, or that the jurors didn't understand the law in this case, or that most defense lawyers put their clients last to focus on fame while for prosecutors its about "the truth" isn't constructive on article talk pages. However, there are lots of forums on other sites that would welcome commentary. Back to Xerxesnine's point, perhaps relevant material will show up in the near future. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Both of us were engaged in speculation Xerxesnine's point is just as speculative and mine. Both of us have made several suggestions if you will look over this page. All of us, including youself should take your advice. Mugginsx (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent - I'm glad you agree and appreciate that you're going to work on that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Is there a Florida law that could counter the verdict (guilty, not guilty) if it is found that the jurors did not follow the jury instructions? On Nancy Grace there was mention of "jury fraud"; the only example given was that if it was proven that their decision was based on what the bible says is right/wrong. Jennifer Ford clearly didn't understand that this was the "guilt phase" and not the "penalty phase"; furthermore, there were plenty of other degree-options surrounding the murder charge that would not have inflicted the death penalty for which she couldn't live with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.239.148 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to Nancy Grace, there isn't a chance in H*** that will happen. The law of Double Jeopardy will prevent her of ever being criminally tried to these offences again. She could be sued in civil court for wrongful death for money (like OJ was) but her parents seem to be delighted that she was found not guilty so I doubt that would happen. I know this is speculation and will probably be told about it, but I think this may not be the last time Casey Anthony will commit a crime. Mugginsx (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Casey's aunt called into the one of the HLN shows voicing her shock over the verdict. Since her aunt and uncle are relatives to Caylee, they can file suit for wrongful death. And if it is proven that woman who says her son is the father, is in fact the father of Caylee, she can file suit as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.239.211 (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the aunt wealthy? It would cost a fortune in legal fees. Florida taxpayers paid the million or so for Casey. Mugginsx (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is not for general discussion about the case or the people involved in the case. Unless someone is proposing an addition or modification to article here this conversation should be closed. GB fan 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: reasonable doubt -- Is this line really what was intended?

"Some believe that the prosecution overcharged the case by tagging on the death penalty; people in good conscience could not sentence Anthony to death based on circumstantial evidence when reasonable doubt existed"

This comment sounds like it was written by someone totally ignorant of how criminal law works -- it's a miscarriage of justice for someone to be convicted of a crime when reasonable doubt exists, whether the punishment sought is the death penalty or a slap on the wrist. I guess it probably happens, so perhaps the writer/commentator(s) meant was that the jury would have convicted her despite having reasonable doubt if the prosecution hadn't been seeking death, but have people worth quoting here really been saying that? 74.56.171.147 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Both comments are true. The case was overcharged. Death penalty was not appropriate. The case was purely and totally circumstantial. It is also true that reasonable doubt existed on the murder charges. If I were a juror, I would have voted for child abuse charges. There was no question that she never reporting that her daughter was missing. Her morther did, and she was forced to admit the fact since she did not have Caylee and had admitted not seeing her for 31 days. That callous disregard for the welfare of her child was clearly proven, by her own admission, even though her initial excuse for not doing so was clearly proven to be a lie. That is where the jurors went wrong. Mugginsx (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Caylees father

Was the evidence ever provided who the father of Caylee Anthony is? I read where the brother was given a paternity test but never saw the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.34.104.13 (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it was only suggested in the opening statement that the father or brother may have molested her where anything said is not necessary truthful as both lawyers and the judge warned the jury.Mugginsx (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename

I recommend this article be renamed Casey Anthony trial. The article is about the investigation and trial of Casey Anthony. Caylee Anthony is relevant to this article only in that her death was part of the investigation and trial of Casey Anthony. The article's primary focus is on the investigation, trial and ongoing discussion over whether Casey Anthony was criminally responsible for Caylee's death. The article's title should reflect all of this. SMP0328. (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree as well. As I stated at the Talk:Casey Anthony page, "When I first clicked on the Death of Caylee Anthony article for the first time last week, the main thing I wondered was why the trial didn't have its own article, not [why Casey Anthony didn't have her own article]." But, really, there isn't even a need for a split of the death and trial. Because, like SMP0328, stated, "Caylee Anthony is relevant to this article only in that her death was part of the investigation and trial of Casey Anthony." Not to mention, the article isn't at all huge. See WP:SIZE. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That said, this has clearly been discussed before. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
There was no consensus and no finality to the previous discussion. It can be discussed here as well. A good editor is also flexible. Mugginsx (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Merged section: Will someone please change the title of this article?

Will someone please change the title of the article? One paragraph is about Caylee's death and the rest is about the Case. It is a good article with good editors by has the wrong title! Mugginsx (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is about her death, Mugginsx. But I understand what you mean. It's explained better by another editor a little above, so why create another section about it? It makes people conflicted about which section to respond in and then we have the discussion going on in two different sections. This section should therefore be merged with the other one. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Merging is acceptable to me. Mugginsx (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Merged. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to be BOLD rename the article to, "Casey Anthony Trial" to better reflect the nature of the article. The lead will need some reworking, but the info on the page is more about the trial than about the death. Angryapathy (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good title and in line with the titles of other famous trials that Wiki has articles on. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

time off for good behavior citation?

there are two places in the article that mention the exact day Casey will be released. That was not and cannot be determined by the Judge. It is only determined by the Prison Authority. Where is the reference? I heard some commentators say it but not any legal source. I do not get all of the channels but I cannot find it online where the Prison Authorites place her exact day of release - time off for good behavior determines exact date. Perhaps it is somewhere but I cannot find it. Can someone find it? Mugginsx (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This article states Wednesday with the source being her lawyers.[4].--Cube lurker (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That is probably good enough. Mugginsx (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In both places where the article mentions that her release date is July 13, take a look at the reference. At the start of news article it says "Judge Belvin Perry sentenced Anthony to four years in jail -- one year for each of her four convictions of lying to police -- but with credit for the approximately three years already served and good behavior, her release date was set for next Wednesday, July 13, a court spokeswoman said Thursday." Obviously, the judge and the attorneys would have consulted with officials at the local jail in determining that date; hope that helps. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have watched three of the videos of the sentencing and the Judge nevers mentions time off for good behavior. He can only give timed served - they have two different meanings. The Judge did not say that. Perhaps the lawyers called the prison authority and got the date but not the judge. Mugginsx (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Were you under the impression that the article, the source citations, and/or editors here were saying that it was the judge who was giving her time off for good behavior? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
THE CITATION DOES NOT SUPPORT BOTH SET OF FACTS. I see my edit has been changed again. Azure - every fact has to be cited correctly according to Wiki guidelines (and common sense). Are you just trying to be disruptive or what? I explained three times why the sentence was not factually accurate the way it was written and the citation for one set of facts (the sentencing by the judge) is not the citation for the other set of facts (the actual time of release). Am I to believe that you do not get this or perhaps you get it but this is not about an accurate article to you but rather a game of power by changing edits, etc. Mugginsx (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to put this in again in a nicer way - but there is no nicer way. Mugginsx (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The citation clearly supports the facts in both sentences. The text of this Wikipedia article reads:
On July 7, Anthony was sentenced to one year in jail and $1,000 in fines for each of the four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, with the sentences to be served consecutively. Anthony received three years credit for time served plus additional credit for good behavior, resulting in her release date being set for July 13, 2011.
The source citation for this text contains the following statements near the start:
"Judge Belvin Perry sentenced Anthony to four years in jail -- one year for each of her four convictions of lying to police -- but with credit for the approximately three years already served and good behavior, her release date was set for next Wednesday, July 13, a court spokeswoman said Thursday. Denying a defense motion to reduce the four counts to a single conviction, Perry gave Anthony the maximum jail time he could by ruling that the four years be served consecutively. He also fined her $1,000 for each count."'
No, I am not trying to be disruptive, or playing "games of power". Please read up on Wikipedia's policy of Assume Good Faith before making further accusations. Is the citation clear to you now? Hopefully so. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
On reviewing the article as well as the video in the second citation, you are correct. There were three videos of the sentencing and I think that originally I did not use this citation. However, as they now stand you are correct. My sincere apologies. I should have reviewed all the citations and not jumped to conclusions. Mugginsx (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem, glad to see we got that resolved. Things can get confusing quickly with events in the news transpiring in real time and different editors making updates and refinements. I certainly don't get things right 100% of the time either. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That is gracious of you to accept my apology. I swear that the citation I put in just had the Judge's video with no article but that is no excuse not rechecking and especially for accusing you of anything. Further, I am now going to take a pain pill - recent achyles tendon operation has turned me into a monster. Hopefully vicodin will turn me back into a human being. Mugginsx (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Caylee's law

I've created a stubby little section on the movement for and drafting of a "Caylee's law". It only has two sources right now, but there is a lot more out there. I'd expand it myself but I don't have the time, so any help is appreciated! Thanks, cymru.lass (The laptop I'm using doesn't have a tilde key! Hoping SineBot signs this for me.) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs)

That is a great way to end the article. In my years in legal work I never realized it was NOT a law that a mother or caretaker report a child missing after 24 hours or ANY number of hours. At least something good may come out of this and Caylee is remembered in some way. It seems from the news reports, etc., that Caylee is forgotten by the family, as well as by Casey, except maybe by the brother. Mugginsx (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's a story that might be put into the article Caylee's law if someone wants to pursue it. http://news.yahoo.com/caylees-law-petition-drive-missing-child-laws-change-234203533.html Mugginsx (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting an article for Caylee's Law, or that it be put into this article? It's too early for an article on Caylee's Law. I think it'd have to pass first, before getting its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Merged section: Caylee's Law

I would like North Carolina to be added to the list of states proposing a Caylee's Law.

http://www.shelbystar.com/news/missing-56485-caylee-county.html http://www.gastongazette.com/news/caylee-58923-local-anthony.html

Heels50blue (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer - there is a stub here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caylee%27s_Law. I'm going back to medieval article but I am sure that you and others could do a good job on it. Nice working with you. Mugginsx (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Like I basically stated, I believe the person who created this article should have waited until the bill passes before making an article on it. Because what if the bill doesn't pass? There's no way Wikipedia is going to want to keep an article on an unofficial bill. But we'll see what happens with this article. Just be warned that editors are likely going to try and get it redirected and may even nominate it for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not it passes doesn't really matter. What matters is the notability of the bill. I think the bill can be considered notable enough, although maybe others disagree? It seems to have been given a lot of coverage. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking it passing is what would make it notable in the eyes of some Wikipedians, not just it having received a lot of media coverage, but we'll see. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Well the general notability guideline sates that "[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I think the article Caylee's Law has enough reliable sources to indicate notability — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand that (WP:Notability). That's why I stated, "I'm thinking it passing is what would make it notable in the eyes of some Wikipedians, not just it having received a lot of media coverage." Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Four Individual counts of lying to law enforcement officials

Since these are the only thing Casey was found guilty of; Is it not worth briefly detailing the four counts of lying to law enforcement. We could use Judge Perry's official words - it didn't take him very long to cite them. I would be willing to do it in the morning but only if there is consensus - do not want to do the work otherwise. In reading through the article I haven't seen any mention of the incident when Casey told law enforcement that she "talked to Caylee" on the phone, though that is one of the lies she was found guilty of though I might have missed it. Mugginsx (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot more this article needs in terms of detail regarding the Case section and its subsections, so I'm all for more being added. We've taken care of the Publicity and aftermath sections with all the significantly relevant detail; now it's time to take care of the other sections as well in a similar fashion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The key elements from the indictment were:
1. That Casey Anthony was employed at Universal Studios Orlando during the year 2008.
2. That Casey Anthony left Caylee with a person identified as Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez on June 9, 2008.
3. That Casey Anthony informed Jeffrey Michael Hopkins and Juliette Lewis, former Universal Studios Orlando employees, of the disappearance of Caylee between June 9, 2008 and July 16, 2008.
4. That Casey Anthony received a phone call from Caylee on July 15, 2008.
-- AzureCitizen (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I went to the full video of sentencing and put the counts in using Judge's words, almost exactly. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Publicity and aftermath section

I don't understand what Blackie Lstree's problem is, but removing significantly relevant passages[5][6] that accurately report/reflect the public's outrage over the verdict is unacceptable and rightfully reverted as such.[7][8] There is nothing POV about presenting facts. And it is fact that there was significant outcry when the verdict was rendered as "Not Guilty" and that many/most people have disagreed with the verdict. This is backed up by every reliable source out there, and should be presented in this article, which includes celebrity outrage at the verdict. If Blackie Lstree has a problem with that, which it is clear that Blackie Lstree's does, then Blackie Lstree is going to have to present reliable sources that dispute these passages. A Quest For Knowledge shouldn't have to tweak the wording to downplay the outrage. Downplaying the outage is not accurate. And there is no way to make the passages "more neutral," seeing as every source out there says that most people are against the verdict, aside from presenting the minority who are not outraged. And we do present both sides.

Blackie Lstree should also be mindful of WP:3RR. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No exoneration, etc.

I removed this article from Category:Parents exonerated of killing their children for multiple reasons. First off the aquittal is not an exoneration. It is merely the finding that their is not enough evidence to convict the accused of the crime, it is not a determination that the accused did not do the crime. Secondly, the person and not the trial was aquitted. An article with a name trial in it should be categorized only in ways that refer to the trial. If it is a person who is being categorized than the redirect to the article should be categorized, not the article itself. That said, I stand by the statement that aquittal is not exoneration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Miss-matched source

The article refers to a joke photo on Anthony's ex-boyfriend's computer, but its source [51] just led to an (as far as I can see) unrelated FOX News article that doesn't mention a joke image or chloroform. This should be fixed. I haven't temporarily removed it because I might screw up the formatting. ArdClose (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

convictions

Her convictions should also include her check fraud. She is a convicted felon on six counts. [1] http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-25/justice/florida.casey.anthony.court_1_george-and-cindy-anthony-caylee-check-fraud?_s=PM:CRIME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.92.236 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about the trial where she was accused of murdering her child, what does these six counts have to do with this? GB fan 12:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone must have failed English class: Ref formatting

A large number of references state the date when they were "retrieved", which it idiotic and wrong. The date should be the date of the referenced publication. Please, if you were a flunky in school, please do not attempt to help on Wikipedia! You're not helping! 67.6.235.220 (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. WP:REF, or more specifically Wikipedia:Citation templates, includes the date the reference was retrieved, as well as the date it was published. If someone leaves out the date an article was published, then that's just an overlook on their part. But we actually can include both; it doesn't have to be one over the other. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Wait, do you mean people mistook the publication date for the retrieval date? If so, I doubt it's been done to "[a] large number of references." Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't mean anything other than what I said. Look at references 49 and 52. That's just a spot check, but 2 is 2 too many. Also, a lot of references are totally bogus and/or from dubious blogs that don't themselves give references. What a sad state of affairs. We should demand higher standards from Wikipedia contributors. 67.6.235.220 (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
And I'm saying you didn't clarify what you mean. I don't know if you mean Option 1 or Option 2, which is why I asked. Reference 49, for example, lists the retrieval date only (meaning the date it was retrieved by the editor). The date the article was published can also be added, but that was left out by the editor who formatted that reference. It can easily be added in. And once it is added in, that same retrieval date will be there. I'm also not sure what you mean by blogs, because newspaper and magazines blogs are perfectly acceptable, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs. I'm not sure what bogus sources you speak of. But if they are in this article, there are not a lot. Flyer22 (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony's mug shot

I have to say I prefer the original one, and not the latter one put up by Grim Littlez. Why not leave the original one when that was the time of her arrest? It's not like we need the most updated picture of her in an article about her trial that will always be set in time anyway. Also, exactly how is the second one also at the time of her arrest? Isn't the second one simply her already in jail but taking a new mug shot?

Anyone have any opinions on which mug shot they prefer and why? Flyer22 (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked the caption, because as I stated in my edit summary, the current image is not at the time of her arrest in its most accurate sense. She was already locked up. It's rather at the time of her indictment charges.
I still don't see why we should go with this image over the original, more well-known one. It (the second one) is definitely the least favorable one in terms of her physical appearance. The public and media are outraged at her enough. I see no reason to choose her worst mugshot as well. But I'm not going to object too passionately. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Solution, put the first arrest mug shot on top... And the second "mug" shot, I can see placed farther down in a different section, for update. If you don't do it soon, then I probably will. I think that's a good compromise, and even beyond a compromise, it would be just better that way for overall accuracy's sake. Both shots belong in this (long-ish) article. Original arrest shot on top. And the updated shot somewhere farther down. Best (and most logical) solution to that question. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That does sound like a good idea. I'm worried about some editor coming along and saying we have too many fair-use images in this article when they aren't needed, however. For example, someone may argue that we don't need both images to understand this case, or may remove the Caylee image to "balance things out." Does fair use apply to mug shots, though?
Either way, I agree with your solution. All for you going ahead and implementing this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
If someone whines about "fair-use" in one article, he or she needs to understand that this a fairly long article now, and detailed, and kinda warrants three good images for this thing to reflect the situations. Three images is not that many. There are plenty of articles with way more than three shots (fair-use or not). I think it's perfectly balanced now, two shots of Casey (since she is the main subject of this article) and one shot of Caylee (since she was the victim and the one killed, and is very important for the article too.) It's weird how some people think it's wrong to have a picture of Caylee on here. That's emotionalism, not logical or encyclopedic argumentation. The news media and reliable sources have shown Caylee's photo galore. And it would be incomplete and silly to not reflect that aspect, of this crazy case. All three pics have logical warrant and even need to be in this article. So I'm glad you agree. The article is detailed and comprehensive. So the photos at this point reflect that fairly well. There's no problem that I see with it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for going ahead and making the change. I saw that you made it a minute before I replied, LOL. As you know, I moved it to the Arrest and charges section[9], so that it can be viewed as more relevant than trivial. I completely agree with you about people wanting to keep an image of Caylee out of Wikipedia based on "emotionalism, not logical or encyclopedic argumentation," and pretty much stated so to another editor above (as it seems you already know).
In mentioning what I did about fair use, I figured I would check on the Caylee image. And sure enough, it's already up for deletion. I started a section about it below to alert others. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Didn't know two people equal a consensus, but the current format is fine(first mug then second). I can't believe this was picked at tbh, but whatever. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Grim Littlez, no one said two people equal a consensus. You were perfectly free to use WP:BRD and take part in this discussion. You still are. I started this topic not long after you changed the photo and you didn't weigh in then. And I "picked at [the image]" for the reasons I gave above. I wasn't trying to be difficult. I just wanted to understand why you changed the original image. It seems mug shots don't fall under fair use, though, since they are within public domain, so that's a good thing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am just catching up with all of the discussions, but it's a lot so please be patient with me. From what I've read so far I'd like to ask if there are any other free images available other than the mugshots? The reason I ask is every article I've worked on in this kind of article has had the mugshots taken down to one unless a really good reason is given for more than one. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - Not reading a whole lot into the discussion, I just want to state my solid opinion. I like the original mugshot that was on the article for the long time prior to the change. In my opinion, it is better lit, and she is looking more at the camera. I personally don't see why it needed any changing.  JoeGazz  ▲  17:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request under Closing Arguments

"Anthony repeatedly told police that Casey was with Zenaida." I believe what was meant here is that 'Casey Anthony repeatedly told police that Caylee was with Zenaida.'Gseymour (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thank you for pointing it out. I sometimes confuse the names after using them too much, though I usually catch myself when I do. I didn't have to put Anthony's full name in that paragraph, since it's clear it's about her. All I had to do was correct mention of Casey's name to "Caylee." [10] Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Caylee image up for deletion

Just wanted to alert editors at this article that the Caylee image is up for deletion. If you want to keep or delete the image, you can weigh in here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 8#File:Caylee anthony.jpg. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - per my comments above, there's every logical reason to keep the Caylee picture on this article. I'm actually annoyed and befuddled that people want to delete it. For like no real reason at all. It's weird how some people think it's wrong to have a picture of Caylee on here. Because of maybe being in "bad taste" because she's dead, and how sad and bad and exploitative, or maybe gruesome, or cold, or whatever. That's emotionalism, not logical or encyclopedic argumentation. The news media and reliable sources have shown Caylee's photo galore. And it would be incomplete and silly to not reflect that aspect, of this crazy case. (A shot of Caylee is warranted since she was the victim and the one killed, and is very important for the article too. To know what she looked like and who the victim actually was.) There's NO valid Wikipedia reason to remove the Caylee image, but every WP reason to keep it. In an article dealing with this very matter. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Your !vote and rationale should go in the relevant 'Files for deletion' section (The link is given above). You may wish to view the reasons which have been given for nominating the file as well. Bob House 884 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I know. I just wanted to put it in both places (this Talk page definitely) to make it clear my position. I'll be pasting the vote comment on the link now. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference undefined was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_3&oldid=1125251990"