Talk:Fritzl case/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ORF news report summaries

Here are some links to ORF (Österreichischer Rundfunk) news reports, together with my amateur summaries, possibly useful for double-checking other sources. ORF broadcasts in German. These do not cover every detail; there was too much to note every item. (continued from Talk:Fritzl incest case#public appeal source)

ORF April 28 - ORF April 28

  • 2 minutes 20 seconds: news report starts
  • I skip making notes for 10 minutes, but the whole report covers the Amstetten case
  • 12 minutes: ORF shows the note written by the mother when still in the cellar
  • 13 minutes 40 seconds: ORF presenter reported that the state had that day (28 April) assigned the victims a Legal guardian (rechtlichen Betreuung) and introduced this as lawyer Doktor Christoph Herbst. The presenter asks Herbst what his duties are and he answers that he is to help the victims with their guardianship, to put off (... ausgesetz sein) direct access to the media, to ensure necessary medical and psychological assistance is available, to sit in on offers from the state and explain such offers to the victims so that they decide whether to accept or not (my very simplified summary).
  • The presenter then states there is a gigantic international media interest in the case and that their are rumours that the victims could become victims a second time. Herbst replies he has never before seen such interest and therefore believes it is sensible that the victims have this legal guardianship available. They discuss further the dangers of media intrusion, refering to the Natascha Kampusch case, and what can be done to protect them. They discuss further from 16 minutes 20 until 17 minutes 35 seconds.
  • ORF interviews a psychotherapist who speculates the nature of JF until 20 minutes.
  • 21 minutes 13 seconds: ORF reporter Otto Stangel is shown stating what Josef Fritzl said to him on the telephone on Monday 21 April (see video for details). Elisabeth had told the police, at her first talk with them on the 26th, that she had seen the 21 April appeal broadcast by ORF. She then pressured her father to let her go to the hospital.
  • 22 minutes 10 seconds: ORF shows the unmarked police car bringing Josef Fritzl to the police station with brief views of JF leaving the car.

ORF April 29 - ORF April 29

  • 2 minutes 10 seconds: Paternity established / Investigative custody / New identity in discussion
  • 2 minutes 30 seconds: Originally we planned to transmit a 20 years of ORF celebration gala, but given the events in Anstetten... we will postpone it until later.
  • Police confirm all six of Elisabeth's children were fathered by Josef Fritzl.
  • Police investigating and documenting many things in the house.
  • Police explain something about how the cellar victims could get food... still open questions concerning the heavy doors.
  • 6 minutes 30 seconds: Robert Fries reports: open questions on doors, health of children, Kerstin's induced coma
  • 8 minutes 55 seconds: "Untersuchungs-Haft" (investigative custody)
  • JF's lawyer is Rudolf Mayer.
  • 11 minutes 20 seconds: ORF reporter speculates possible charges and penalties.
  • JF is in a 2 man cell - a single cell would have a suicide risk, a cell with several men would have other risks.
  • 12 minutes 50 seconds ORF interviews Franz Polzer, Leiter Landeskriminalamt NÖ (police chief Lower Austria)
  • Franz Polzer: this heavy door has a special importance in the case, who could have installed it, how was it operated, we assume installed before the imprisonment; etc* Franz Polzer: no trace of any person other than JF and the prisoners was in the cellar for the 24 years, no other DNA.
  • Franz Polzer covers several further topics, they assume JF faked the voice of Elisabeth, etc.
  • 17 minutes: ORF reports from/interviews with people who knew JF: employer, passers by, etc.
  • I skipped some reporting here.
  • 18 minutes 50 seconds. A 1982 building fire ... JF suspect? Court decided no.
  • 19 minutes 40 seconds: 5 houses with total value around 2 million Euros.
  • 20 minutes 10 seconds: new identity for victims? Media interest still heavy.
  • Hans-Heinz Lenze, Bezirkshauptmann Anstetten (district governor): We must first make the cellar-born official Austrian citizens. We must discuss with the family things like a name change. Etc
  • 21 minutes 10 seconds the lawyer doctor Christoph Herbst today has the mandate to represent all the victims (cf legal guardian).
  • 21 minutes 25 seconds ORF: Tomorrow we will broadcast the benefits-event for the Amstetten victims.

- (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful for cross references. I'd rewrite the whole article but my English is not good enough.--Kathlutz (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ORF April 30

  • 1 minute 30 seconds: headlines: possible other Fritzl victims / Niederösterreicher benefits event for the victims / Alles Garten
  • 1 minute 45 seconds: Third day of the case; police investigate 1986 murder case;
  • 2 minutes 10 seconds: Fritzl's Thailand holiday videos appear; officials question time prisoners left alone
  • 2 minutes 30 seconds: 1986 woman found murdered in Mondsee case still open
  • 3 minutes: Police chief Franz Polzer: Cannot say, all Fritzl's activities will be looked at later
  • 3 minutes: Police chief Franz Polzer: Josef Fritzl has said that the electronic remote controlled lock (elektrische Fernsteurung) was so configured that in the case that anything happened to him (JF) after a certain time period the lock would unlock, such that the door could be opened with the help of a tool, a tool that already lay on the inside of the door so that the door could then be opened from inside (this is the gist of the statement, not a translation)
  • 4 minutes: meanwhile this door is being examined by specialists, JF installed all equipment alone and without other help, including refridgerator, washing machine and freezer
  • 4 minutes 25 seconds: Franz Polzer: with the aid of this equipment it seems possible the prisoners could survive over weeks
  • 4 minutes 30: Kerstin still critical, others health state is good
  • I skip some reporting here,
  • 6 minutes: there are appeals on the media to stop all the heavy interest and to protect the privacy of the victims / Paparazzi climbing trees around the clinic, etc, etc
  • 8 minutes: Hans-Heinz Lenze discusses the checking of the mother's handwriting on the letters; he disputed several media reports that there was no criminal register/no examination of the register made; shows extract of criminal register dated 16.05.1994 stating there were no judgements against Josef Fritzl (born 09.04.1934 - note wikipedia has different year, in Amstetten, parents Josef and Maria, Anfrnr. 5180093, DVR: 0003506);
  • 9 minutes 20 seconds: ORF NÖ Benefits event for the victims; ORF had changed their 20 year gala into this event
  • from 9 minutes 50 seconds until 13 minutes: covers the gala for the 20 years of ORF NÖ including the Amstetten impact
  • 13 minutes: normal news coverage: finance, traffic, art exhibition, economy
  • 19 minutes 40 seconds: back to Amstetten: JF left the prisoners alone for periods / harm to Austria's image
  • 20 minutes 30 seconds: ORF signs off

ORF May 1

  • 2 minutes 45 seconds: day 4; Paparazzi still trying to get photos of the victims
  • 3 minutes 10 seconds: Since April 30 guards have been patroling the walls of the clinic; a German reporter tried to violently enter the building; an American newspaper offered one million dollars for first photos
  • 4 minutes 30 seconds: officials deciding what charges to bring against JF; no evidence of accomplices
  • 5 minutes 50 seconds until end: other news

ORF May 2

  • 2 minutes 55 seconds: "Spätes Erinnern", a former renter heard knocking sounds
  • 3 minutes 30 seconds: former renter Alfred Dubanovsky said he sometimes heard knocks on the pipes, and the sound of a shove with a broom ("richtige Stossen mit ein Besen")
  • 4 minutes: former renter Josef Leitner lived 4 years over the cellar and argued with Josef Fritzl when his electricity bill suddenly rose when Leitner had hardly used any; Leitner said he at first paid the increased quarterly bill (5000 Schilling, approx 360 Euros) but after the second (or subsequent) 5000 Schilling bill he switched off all his electrical equipment and found the meter was still running fast. Leitner reported there were rumours that JF had abused Elisabeth before she disappeared (plus some details that a friend of Elisabeth had told him).
  • 5 minutes 55 seconds: "Mehr Rechte fuer Opfer": new laws for victims in effect; shows row of media TV vans; name change law: everyone is free to change name in these circumstances
  • 8 minutes 30 seconds: on the rule where old convictions get erased after 15 rules; governor of Lower Austria, Erwin Pröll, strongly criticises this rule; proposals to double to 30 years
  • until 11 minutes 30 seconds: investigations on doors, sound transmission etc
  • 11 minutes 30 seconds until end: other news

ORF May 3

  • 2 minutes 38 seconds: headlines: "Angebunden" Josef Fritzl put daughter on a leash
  • 3 minutes 38 seconds: Daughter claims Josef Fritzl first put her in handcuffs, then later on a leash for several months
  • 5 minutes: clinic now fully barricaded: clinic leader says there will be media contact only when the patients wish; doctors insist there should not be overtaxing demands, avoid too much therapy, avoid talking too much; a team of psychiatrists, pschycholgists, neurologists and speech therapists stand ready to help but everything progresses slowly
  • 5 minutes 35 seconds: Police chief Franz Polzer has given about 3000 interviews in the last few days; in ORF program "Ins Gespräch" Polzer talks about his experiences with international media and the chances to fully investigate the Amstetten case.
  • 6 minutes until 12 minutes: interview with Franz Polzer on the job of a criminalist. On energy of JF in building parts of the house, the preplanning, etc. On the acoustics of the cellar and nearby walls. On the threat of gas, whether real or just a threat. How to seperate private life from police work.
  • 12 minutes 10 seconds: other news

(I added summaries for April 30 to May 3 above) - (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this extensive list of reports from local TV. I'm intrigued by the way information is produced, changed and spread. Wiki plays a big role in this process. Was it you who asked earlier about other concerns? I wonder about the incinerator where the body of the baby was burnt but will leave it as it is for now. Austrian sources say it's a "Heizkessel" which would be part of the house's central heating system. He hasn't confessed to it so it's unclear whether the body was burnt inside or outside the house.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Or at all! Just bearing WP:BLP in mind!! -:) Harry the Dog WOOF 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Kathlutz, yes I was the same that asked about other concerns above. While watching the Austrian news archives I looked out for mention of the daughter dragging a door or moving earth, but so far nothing. In fact comparing the first hand statements (by the police, the local governor, the lawyer, the doctors, etc) to the British press "interpretation" has been interesting (I am English but with experience of living in Germany). I already knew tabloids such as the UK Sun and the German Bild were to be avoided, but I now have seen tabloid behaviour from The Telegraph and The Times (or rushed, lazy and sloppy journalism). Sadly I know firsthand that many British (of all classes) are ignorantly biased. I'm sure this is not news to serious media watchers. I am unsure how wikipedia should use such media sources in a serious article (always quote the media reporting, maybe, always add later less-rushed cites?). I have only watched up to May 3. Meanwhile here are some odd claims that probably need (yet) better citing:
  • JF's date of birth is 1934 in the ORF video of the actual criminal register, but an uncited 1935 in wiki
Recent Police Press release says he is 73 but no birth date given. Spiegel and other mainstream sources say 9.4.1935.
This is true, and ORF always says he's 73. The official Strafregisteraufref clearly shows 1934, maybe their typo.
  • 300 kg is not half a ton!
I removed it. There is much confusion about the doors system. There was a 250kg-300kg door and a separate, no longer used 500 kg door.
  • "pulling it into place" may be true, but comes from a laughable source - so far I have not heard this in German (up to May 3)
Needs to be deleted or better sourced.
  • "entered using a remote" - not in the cite (but Franz Polzer talks about a remote in ORF April 30)
Other sources have it.
Yes, and the BBC Profile source, please see Talk:Fritzl incest case#improved citations.
  • "He carried the remote with him at all times" - not in the cite
Doubtful. I will remove it.
Yes, but editors could if they wished write "he took it with him when he left" as there is a German cite, see Talk:Fritzl incest case#improved citations
  • "burnt the body in an incinerator" - this BBC cite has "allegedly", and as you say, probably the Heizkessel. I suspect the BBC reported what the police told them of the daughter's statements
Press release says only that he removed the body from the cellar and later burnt it. Will remove incinerator.
  • "renewed criticism of the Austrian Police and Social Services" - this is fault of the critics themselves, listen to Hans-Heinz Lenze's actual refutation. I think wikipedia should not leave that sentence hanging there.
- (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added some replies above, but I now see my "improved citations" section is partly out of date as some have been fixed. There is still the wrong Daily Mail cite. - (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ORF May 4

  • 2 minutes 50 seconds: headlines. 3 minutes 20 seconds: JF.'s sister-in-law says no relative had any idea
  • 3 minutes 55 seconds: shows 3D plan of cellar rooms, investigating air supply and light
  • 4 minutes: Christine, JF's sister-in-law recounts sect rumours and that all believed JF
  • 4 minutes 35 seconds: video frame of JF on holiday in Mondsee 1993
  • 4 minutes 50 seconds: shows JF's lawyer Rudolf Mayer on checking JF's sanity
  • 5 minutes 20 seconds: other news until end at 17 minutes

- (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ORF May 5

  • 2 minutes 30 seconds: headlines: (Zweite Tür) second door found
  • 3 minutes: police show building plans, initially 35 square metres, enlarged after 4th birth
  • 3 minutes 20 seconds: second door found, police say it the first used by JF and was at least as secured as the more modern door (shows modern door with 1 on yellow tag)
  • Police chief Franz Polzer: 500 kg (Fünfhundert kilogram) door made with filled concrete (gegossene Beton). Cursor and red arrow shows location. Behind this door a small separating room (Zwischenraum) with a switchable (latchable?) sliding door. Inside this prison, next to the effective entrance, one finds a metal door, and (something about unrecognised traces) which we need to investigate further.
  • 4 minutes: ORF presenter: over the years this entrance must have been abandoned.
  • Franz Polzer talks about how the 500 kg door has been concreted (screed?) in so that it no longer moves
  • This hinged door could no longer be opened as, due to its weight, it must have sunk a little and started to grate on the floor when one tried to open it (sorry can't explain it any better ;-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathlutz (talkcontribs) 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 4 minutes 20 seconds: shows plan view at corner of Dammstrasse, top, and Ybbstrasse, right, with 1890 old building (Altbau) in dark green with earliest used, but now nonfunctioning, door (Tür 1) marked red. New building (Newbau 1978-1983 in light green) to the left, with the prison (Verlies) in gray between them both.
  • 4 minutes 28 seconds: Tür 2 (the more modern, functioning, door) shown in red on far left entering the narrow passageway that leads rightwards to the prison. Up to eight locking doors exist to get to the prison. Over the years prison enlarged to 55 square metres.
  • 4 minutes 40 seconds: Franz Polzer says there is absolutely no evidence that earth was moved out of the prison, via any means.
  • 4 minutes 50 seconds: repeat view of JF brought in to police station
  • skipping talk on psychiatric tests to be made on JF
  • 5 minutes 20 seconds: victims' health improving, 19 year-old no longer in acute life threatening state but still kept ventilated and in induced coma
  • 6 minutes: general progress on daughter and 5 and 18 year-olds, given more personal items, especially acquarium that they had in the prison and that fascinates the 5 year-old. Mother and grandmother in charge of daily routine, preparing breakfast and evening meals, children making beds. Other observations.
  • 7 minutes: Amstetten case to be broadcast in "Thema" at 21:10 on ORF2
  • 7 minutes 15 seconds: Other news until
  • 21 minutes 15 seconds: ORF helps the Amstetten victims. Aerial view of house. Bank details for donations.

- (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ORF May 6

  • 2 minutes 40 seconds: headlines: behind bars, how the suspect JF lives;
  • 3 minutes: on JF's schedule, he's calm and quiet, but is kept away from other prisoners
  • 3 minutes 20 seconds: view of cell similar to JF's: 12 square metres, floor rug, wooden bunk beds, 2 cupboards, two chairs, 2 tables, television, wash basin, window. Allowed to keep private items, plants, etc. in cell.
  • Günther Mörwald, leiter Justizanstalt (prison chief) Sankt Pölten: JF, as other prisoners, has right to daily exercise of one hour. Not obligatory, so far JF declines this. Mörwald speaks of possible threats by others, but so far none known. JF also declines daily meetings with state lawyer Christiane Burkheiser.
  • 5 minutes 10 seconds: ORF reporter Christiane Teschl explains JF's schedule for next day's (Wednesday May 7) interrogation (Einvernahme) with state lawyer (prosecutor) and arrangements and reporting restrictions set by JF's lawyer Rudolf Mayer.
  • 6 minutes 10 seconds: other news until 21 minutes 30 seconds: ORF Amstetten victim appeal.

- (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ORF May 7

  • 1 minutes 30 seconds: headlines: First interrogation (Esrtse Einvernahme), JF cooperative
  • 2 minutes: State lawyer questions JF for one and half hours
  • 2 minutes 40 seconds: shows state lawyer Christiane Teschl
  • Gerhard Sedlacek presents before eleven camera teams outside prison Sankt Pölten: took one and half hours, questions restricted to JF's personal and occupational details, no questions on the charges themselves; Sedlacek satisfied with JF's answers, etc
  • 3 minutes 30 seconds: next questioning is in 2 weeks, when criminal investigation results will be available. Court case will not start before autumn
  • 3 minutes 40 seconds: meanwhile the victims lawyer, Christoph Herbst, starts an action against JF, in order to freeze JF's assets.
  • 3 minutes 45 seconds: police closed the investiagtion of private objects in the dungeon, and now concentrate on the neighbouring house that police believe only the suspect had access to. All rooms in the house will be investigated in the hope that JF left some plans or documentation, such as old receipts or work contracts. In parallel the cellar (note, not the dungeon) will be examined. Access to the cellar has not yet been found. Initial tests with probes (Sonden) suggest it contains only building debris. To be sure, investigators will break into the cellar area.
  • 4 minutes 39 seconds: Amstetten people oragnize an initiative to "set a sign" (Zeichen setzen). Shows banner with "We think of you", etc. One to two thousand Amstetten people present. people's views on long term impact on Amstetten, feelings that world believes "Amstetten is guilty", full of sex criminals, and so on. More on feelings of overbearing worldwide media.
  • 7 minutes 15 secons: political impact: Justice minister Maria Berger criticises officials ("somewhat gullible", sect claims should have been better examined); Hans-Heinz Lenze objects stating unclear whether Berger criticises the youth-social-services or the criminal register. Lenze rejects all criticisms against the former, stating the social services did excellent work and he fully supports his people. Berger unreachable for comment.
  • 8 minutes 20 seconds: other news

- (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ORF May 8

  • 2 minutes 50 seconds: headlines: Erste Fortschritte
  • 3 minutes 12 seconds: victims receive first visitors, health improving; but they are not fully free because clinic continually besieged (belagert) by photograhpers so they cannot enjoy the garden
  • 3 minutes 35 seconds: summarises yesterday's Amstetten initiative; 19 year-old's condition improves, still in induced coma
  • 4 minutes: the seven victims are growing together as a family and are making progress, Dr. Berthold Kepplinger, medical head of the 'Mauer' hospital, reports. Visits from other relatives allowed and occurred, for example the mother's siblings.
  • 4 minutes 40 seconds: less welcome are visits from Paparazzi, who hide in trees or lie hidden in the ground, in order to make a lot of money from photographs of the victims.
  • 5 minutes: Berthold Kepplinger: There are too many nosy people on the paths, but we hope that at some time (I paraphrase from here) when interest wanes that our patients will be able to enjoy the beautiful park landscape. But at this moment in time, it is not possible.
  • 5 minutes 20 seconds: unclear is the financial situation of the victims, as the properties appear to have an attached debt of two and a half million Euros. Whether there is any net assets, the victims' lawyer Christoph Herbst will clarify next week.
  • 5 minutes 35 seconds: ORF presenter asks reporter Renate Kreuzwieser the state of the investigation: the one thousand square metre house is being examined metre by metre, also a ground penetrating radar is being used. Franz Polzer explained the radar is to hopefully identify empty spaces. Next week searches for blood traces in the garden will take place, to see if anything was buried there. More on possibly extending JF custody time.
  • 6 minutes 30 seconds: Landesklinikum Amstetten Mauer, where the victims are being treated, will be enlarged with a house-extension. Eight million Euros will be invested, building to begin in Autumn.
  • 6 minutes 45 seconds: other news

- (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ORF May 9

( I am the same user as the 84.* user above, and have just created User:84user )

  • 2 minutes 40 seconds: headlines: Weiter in Haft; other
  • 3 minutes: Josef F's custody extended for 4 more weeks
  • 4 minutes 30 seconds: Gerhard Sedlacek: JF had right to lodge objection to custody extension, which he did not exercise
  • 5 minutes: Lenze speaks vague (my opinion) words on readiness to support Fritzl family's future (Gestaltung) (registers of life history maybe?)
  • 5 minutes 35 seconds: work at Amstetten site pauses, the 44 workers have Pentecost (Pfingsten) free
  • 5 minutes 55 seconds: work to resume Tuesday (May 13), summarise areas of investigation
  • 6 minutes 15 seconds: we asked JF's lawyer for an interview which he again put off (abgelehnt) because he, as JF's defense laywer, would be (or felt he was?) threatened and that he wished to withdraw somewhat from public view
  • 6 minutes 35 seconds: other news until 22 minutes

ORF May 10, 11 and 12

May 10 has no Amstetten coverage, instead returns to the case of Dr. Hannes Hirtzberger, mayor of Spitz, Austria who was poisoned by a praline in February:

  • 4 minutes 30 seconds: shows text 8.2.2008 präparierte er ein Konfekt der Marke "Mon Cheri" mit 700 mg Strychnin. Danach entsorgte er das Tatwerkzeug und die Reste des Giftes.

May 11 has no Amstetten coverage, ends at 17 minutes.

  • 2 minutes 20 seconds: May 12 headlines: Verzweifelt; other news

I have not looked at May 12 past the first 4 minutes but it covers the topic of missing children and people generally; hundreds go missing annually; most are found in a short time; looks at the case of 17 year old Julia missing for two years. -84user (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ORF May 13

  • 2 minutes 55 seconds: headlines: Spurensuche; Bauernproteste; Neue Hauptschule;
  • 3 minutes 20 seconds: today dogs used to sniff for blood traces; checking air, water and ground
  • 3 minutes 45 seconds: 3 dogs in shifts; looking for blood or body parts, so far nothing found
  • 4 minutes: curious onlookers drive their cars slowly by, even a tourist bus
  • 4 minutes 20 seconds: owner of coffeehouse next to the house talks: (but I didn't understand him)
  • 4 minutes 30 seconds: there are now fewer international media people in the street
  • 4 minutes 35 seconds: tomorrow, after the dogs, a special firm will conduct a search of the ground with a radar
  • 4 minutes 45 seconds: in next two weeks various specialists will be at work
  • 4 minutes 50 seconds: the investigating police withdraw more from the public, no more press conferences
  • 5 minutes 10 seconds: other news until end at 22 minutes

-84user (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ORF May 14

Not available as of May 15 -84user (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

May 14 - Fritzl's victims thank the public

I noticed the website of the Austrian broadcaster ORF (NÖ), has a May 14 illustrated news item "Familie tritt erstmals an Öffentlichkeit" here:

and that the BBC has an english version (with some extra details) "Fritzl's victims thank the public" here:

and better (readable) images here: -84user (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move from "Fritzl Incest case"

I have listed this at WP:RM as I think the current title is inadequate to describe the contents of the article. With an open mind as to the new name, but with certainty that the current one is insufficient/misleading. I think incest is a mere part of the case, and is not the primary defining factor. Sadly, incest is relatively common compared to imprisoning your family for decades in a basement. I would suggest the name at least contains the most notable term 'Fritzl', a reference to crimes against the whole family (he is only alleged to have comitted incest with one daughter), and/or the basement (or cellar - a minor issue) / imprisonment aspect. I suggest:

MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Fritzl case is my choice. I would find Fritzl imprisonment case acceptable. I think we need as neutral a title for now as possible. If one aspect of the case becomes so predominant that it needs to be part of the title, we can add it later. I have always argued that to include the word "incest" in the title was not appropriate, for the reasons MickMacNee mentions. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm not eager to move it. I'm not in favor of censoring descriptions and thus obscuring the nature of a subject. But if we do move, I'd favor Fritzl incest and imprisonment case. It is reasonably succinct, yet covers the main elements of the case.--Redirectorial (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fritzl incest and imprisonment case would be my pick as well of the mentioned suggestions. I'd think that incest was indeed a core issue here. However common it may or may not be, having seven children with your own daughter is something quite extraordinary; IMO the word "incest" should definitely be part of it. TerminusEst (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Censorship isn't my reason for removing 'incest' btw, I just think it doesn't reflect the most notable aspect of the case, the imprisonment (and length of time). MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

*Fritzl case has my vote. Incest is a minor (criminal) aspect of the case, even though it seems to fire the imagination of the press and public. The most extraordinary aspect is the duration and manner of the long term imprisonment, so I would also not object to Fritzl imprisonment case--Kathlutz (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • How about Elisabeth Fritzl, just like Natascha Kampusch? These articles are usually named after the victim, I think, at least when there is just one clear victim in the center of the scandal. This might simplify things. Equazcion /C 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That appears to have been roundly rejected in earlier discussions in the archive, and it was the original title of the artcle. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not, this article will never be named for the victim herself. Kampusch has gone out of her way to present herself. If Fritzl does likewise we can revisit this; otherwise, we never name a victim in a tawdry fashion. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you define "tawdry"? Is Disappearance of Madeleine McCann a tawdry article title? If not, what makes Elizabeth Fritzl tawdry and Madeleine McCann not? You really do need to stop acting like your opinion is the only one that matters Lawrence. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Mmm, I think that's a skewed way of looking at it. The article is pretty much about her, and the case would be the reason she's notable. I don't see making her name the title as being necessarily "tawdry". Equazcion /C 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And stop with the "absolutely not" and "never", please, Lawrence. While I always love being yelled at in a nazi-esque fashion, it would be more constructive if you'd present your opinions as opinions rather than final decisions. Thanks. Equazcion /C 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How DARE you call me a Nazi. Retract that at once. That is a vile personal attack. And on BLP, no, we do not play consensus compromise games on it. Therefore, we don't need to play at offering compromise on BLP, the same as we don't play at offering compromise on copyright matters. Some issues are non-negotiable. Again: retract your vile little attack. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I see the reasons not in Cohen's usual ardent defence per do no harm, but the fact that NK was the only victim with one perpetrator above, and hence got universal coverage via her name, whereas here there are multiple victims below ground, and a whole family above ground, and if anything the case has centred on the name of the perpetrator, not any one victim. Any following desire for publicity is just an irrelevance imo. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • These articles are usually named after the victim - really? I think this is mostly the case when the perpetrator is not known at first, only the victim(s), hence the case becomes known under their name. I oppose Elisabeth Fritzl case. Two of her children were imprisoned for 19 resp. 18 years. Who decides who is the "major" victim here?--Kathlutz (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Aye, a broad reference using the family name is preferable to singling out one involved party, I'd say.TerminusEst (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I object to the Elizabeth Fritzl suggestion in the strongest possible terms. First of all, I think you are talking out of your ass when you say that these articles are "usually named after the victim." Cite some examples besides Kampusch, which as stated is a special case because she has given interviews and is now a notable figure in her own right.
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is one. It's not the "McCann case" or the "Praia da Luz abduction case".
And from 2007 alone: Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Death of Dean Shillingsworth, Kidnapping of Alan Johnston, Sophie Lancaster murder, Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, Murder of Kelsey Smith, Murder of Meredith Kercher, and Murder of Rhys Jones. Of course most of these people are dead so WP:BLP doesn't apply, but there is good precedent for naming even after a living victim.
But I agree that at this stage naming after one victim or the perpetrator is not the way to go, although if warranted bio articles could be created in the future. I don't think WP:BLP can be used for preventing the creation of an article about a notable person; it just governs what the article can say. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, even if we take your assertion at face value, that crimes with a single victim are usually named after the victim (which is false, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is true) -- it still would be ridiculous to apply that here, because there were multiple victims.
It's not going to be named Elizabeth Fritzl, end of story. There is very powerful consensus against it; there are powerful BLP reasons against it; there is strong precedent against it; and there are clear logical reasons against it. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I've never seen one guy halt a productive discussion this way before (me). You give me such power here, it's overwhelming. It was just a siggestion -- if you disagree, get over it, move on and make your own suggestion. Sheesh! Equazcion /C 15:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would support the last of Mick's suggestions, ie fritzl case and utterly oppose Elizabeth Fritzl. I hope you did not again claim that this move was uncontroversial, Mick. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I still think Josef Fritzl is where we will ultimately end up, but Fritzl case is okay too. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope not as I hope we are moving away from bios of these folk whose only notability is committing crimes, and where will ultimately end up depends on how long this case continues (eg a trial), as this case certainly has elements stronger than just incest (without wanting to trivialise the incest) and I imagine the 2 imprisoned boys would be a huge source of scientific info on surviving growing up in such an environment, much like the children growing up with wolves as parents etc, and fritzl case keeps it simple. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually SqueakBox has made me think of something that I had not considered before. There are many different crimes either acknowledged or alleged here. Each member of the family will have suffered differently, will have had different things done to them (as well as things in common of course). Therefore to single out even "imprisonment" for example doesn't work. It's not a catch-all. Rosemarie and the children upstairs did not suffer imprisonment, but they are victims in this case. With that in mind, is Fritzl case really not theonly possible alternative? Harry the Dog WOOF 16:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the conclusion I am reaching from this discussion too. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fritzl Basement Case would be my choice. I have yet to hear the word "incest" acually used by the media. "Rape" everyday, "Impisonment"/"Dungeon"/"Basement" almost as common. Strangely the word Incest seems to me to select the most salacious (pardon spelling!) term, yet still trivialising the horror of the actual offence. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

* I propose Josef Fritzl - If Kerstin dies, Fritzl is likely to be charged with "Murder by Negligence" and the whole focus will be on him. He is already facing a murder charge over the baby who died. Tovojolo (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't focus exclusively on either the father or the daughter, as neither has dominated coverage of the matter or is a predominant part of the matter. "Fritzl something-or-other" nicely encompasses both. It might or might not be relevant that the imprisonment is, alas, more peculiar than the rape. --Kizor 14:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am seeing the consensus narrowing to just using the family name - Fritzl case - or perhaps the family name with the location - Fritzl basement case. I see a general consenus that we should not focus on one or more of the alleged crimes. Is that a fair assesment? If not, what other suggestions are still in the running? If so, which of those two should we choose? Harry the Dog WOOF 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Fritzl case is the only clear choice so far, but its only been a couple of days..., I do think that myself, with two other opinions so far, Fritzl incest and imprisonment case has legs as being more precise than just Fritzl case. In a few months, will 'Fritzl case' mean anything to new readers once its out of the news? We could always redirect it to the longer name as the proper title. It would also be a better name for direct linking from other articles. MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Fritzl incest and imprisonment case, the problem with that is not all the victims (only one as far as we know now) were the victims of incest and only three were the victims of imprisonment. It does not cover the other crimes alleged or confessed, indeed only two aspects that alone would not make for a notable crime but taken with everything else mean that this case is way out of the ordinary. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Fritzl incest and imprisonment case, a further problem is this: if we include incest and imprisonment we must also include sexual abuse in the title. When a father has sexual intercourse with his minor or grown-up daughter against her will, we don't call it incest as a rule. We call it sexual abuse or rape. I know only of two other currently widely known cases that are referred to as incest cases, but both are concerning consenting partners, one between two siblings in Germany and the other between a father and daughter in Australia. Is there a fear that people can't find the page if it is called Fritzl case? If so, why not redirect to it from some of the other suggestions.--Kathlutz (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If we don't simply name the article after the accused man, I vote for Fritzl family imprisonment (or Fritzl family-imprisonment case, with necessary hyphen and somewhat extraneous "case"). Incest, nonconsensual or not, is not the defining factor: keeping one's child and grandchildren locked up for so many years is the most remarkable aspect. (Besides, the bad thing about the incest in this incident is that it seems to have been abusive. Incest itself isn't inherently awful; forced sex acts are. When we mean sexual abuse, we call it sexual abuse, not merely sexual activity; when we mean rape, we don't call it sexual intercourse; when we mean intrafamilial sex that may well have lacked consent, the term incest (1) is insufficient to describe the situation and (2) paints with a black brush those in the world who consensually choose relationships that, in certain cultures, occupy the incest taboo.) President Lethe (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Fritzl case - simple, NPOV, descriptive. BlueValour (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

new proposed name

Case? Why not Josef Fritzl family? BVande (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration from interwiki?

Following the interwiki links, the following titles are found (excluding those with letters I cannot read; with my amateur translations added - feel free to supplement and correct this):

With the family name:

With the name of the father:

With the name of the daughter/mother:

With the name of the town:

I think "(The) Fritzl case" and "(The) Crime case of Amstetten"/"Amstetten crime case" are worth considering.--Noe (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the article is now move-protected admin only. This is because of the move-vandalism from earlier today. This is not intended to be any sort of proscription against the current rename debate. There are enough admins watching this thing that if/when the current debate reaches a conclusion, any of them can implement it easily enough. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to me there is a near-concensus that "Fritzl case" is better than "Fritzl incest case". Although other suggestions have made and may be preferred by some, I think it's time to make this move. Of course, this does not rule out further discussion.--Noe (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fritzl crime case -- Wilfried Elmenreich (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fritzl case has my vote. I oppose Fritzl incest case strongly. Reducing a case of sexual assault including repeated rape, false imprisonment of an exceptional duration, incest, and possibly murder by negligence (death of twin baby), involving also alleged physical abuse, mental abuse and deception (not only the obvious victims but also authorities), some of it serious crimes against up to 7 persons, to a mere incest case is not a NPOV. This replaces my earlier vote which is now str-ed.--KathaLu (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I support Fritzl case but if Kerstin dies, I believe the article will have to become Josef Fritzl because then he will be charged with "Murder by Negligence". Tovojolo (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Status

I have put the article forward for GA Status. It'll be interesting to see what comments the GA Assessor makes.

Tovojolo (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Future of the house

Interview with representative of Amstetten public building authority Freinberger in Kronenzeitung of 11 May: future prospects of the house is totally uncertain, will depend on what family wants. Welfare of family and their wishes is paramount, will not be decided for some time. Building authority will check all legal aspects first, will also check constructional aspects because of illegal building activities by Fritzl. One option being considered: concealed part of cellar could be closed off in such a way that no longer accessible at all.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Private data in media

Several articles have started to crop up in Austrian and German media concerning reporting of Fritzl case and publishing of private data and photos. Summary: press doesn't risk much, no consequences or just a reprimand by Press Council (if at all) or compensation payment at worst (no big sums involved), they can easily pay it, profit from publishing is larger. In most cases, no court case is brought against them as victims or their family members have neither money nor energy to start lengthy legal proceedings against press.--Kathlutz (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Name change/shaky references

Current information in Wiki article (authorities proposed name change for Elisabeth and her brothers and sisters) appears not to be correct although referenced. Thank you to contributor who uploaded summaries of daily Austrian TV reports, very helpful for checking reporting. Claim about name change for whole family seems to be absent in German language media. Press reports are based on TV street interview with Hans-Heinz Lenze, Bezirkshauptmann Anstetten (district governor) on 29 April. He refers to cellar born children only. Asked about the future of these children, he says that "we probably have to acquaint ourselves with the thought of bringing about/effecting a name change, after discussion with the family." German press service DPA reports the interview and adds: "Lenze did not say whether this name change will also apply to 42 year old Elisabeth". No mention whatsoever of a name change for other children or Elisabeth's siblings, as claimed in Wiki article!--Kathlutz (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the authorities are planning to change the names of Elisabeth and her children and give them new identities then there are no issues in us using their current names because their identities will be changed, WP:BLP Tovojolo (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to explain that there are currently no plans to change their names. One single person, Mr. Lenze, mentioned the possibility in an interview on the street, when asked about the future of 3 of the children. He referred only to them and said it was up to the family to decide at a much later stage, as there were more pressing problems.--Kathlutz (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Logically changing their names and relocating them is the only way to protect their privacy. Otherwise they will turn into a circus sideshow. One of more of them may decide to become celebrities like Kampusch has done, but I really don't see it. The circumstances are so totally different. But obviously it is early days, and we will see what happens. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL - I am learning fast, don't I ;-). I have a hunch that it will not happen, certainly not in the sense of the witness protection programs we learn about in US movies. Maybe a change of the family name of the children, but not in the way that it will be kept secret from the public, just in order to prevent that EVERYBODY who comes into contact with them in daily life will immediately know who they are. Austria is a small country, the family is huge, I could imagine that the support it could provide will be more important, than changing their identity and isolating them from family and familiar surroundings. Anyway, my point here is that the way it is worded in Wiki is not accurate, the referenced source is unreliable, there is overwhelming contrary evidence in other sources (including the original interview with Lenze). It needs to be reworded.--Kathlutz (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. "Floated" is probably not the best choice of word for an encyclopedia but "proposed" would sound too official in this context.--Kathlutz (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Animal language

I challenge the claim that "the children communicate with each other through a combination of speech and animal sounds, including growling and cooing", as currently stated in the Wiki article and attributed to police officer Etz. It seems to have its origin in the Bild tabloid (German version of the Sun). In many other sources, Etz is reported to have said that their language shows pecularities but the above statement gives the wrong impression of what he said. A few days later, investigators said that 18-year old son Stefan can read and write, although his r+w is somewhat limited but this found much less coverage in the media. Anyone else can tackle this, please?--Kathlutz (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have reason to suspect the "animal language", based from what I read here -

- however, I note that the article I pointed out to has more to do with Elizabeth than that of her children. "Some people who hear the story think Elisabeth is like something from a horror film. But rumours that she has no teeth and cannot talk are not true." Truly, if this is the case, it's just a bit too hard to fathom that her children don't have any teeth, or find it exhausting to speak intelligibly especially when under the 24-hour care of a mother and television. Then again, this whole case is unfathomable. Still, I believe we need a hard, conclusive source (preferably in English) that states that the children don't use this "animal language" or we'll have to assume that they do, sourced from a poor translation or otherwise. Acorngirl3 (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

:It's a maelstrom of information. Random selection:

  • J. McCartney, Telegraph, 4/5/08: thanks to his mother and the television in his cellar, this child (five-year-old Felix) can speak a little.
  • M. Landler, NY Times, 29/4, Elisabeth taught them to speak German, and they had access to a television.
  • J. Marshall, Birmingham Post, 29/4, "Elisabeth Fritzl taught them how to speak," Mr Polzer said.
  • F. Attewill and agencies, Guardian, 9/5, [Elisabeth] taught them to read and write with the aid of a television.
Of course, this was written before it was known that they also had books. And tons of canned food and frozen food with writing on it.--Kathlutz (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
So how about this, from today: J. Armstrong+E.Miller, Mirror, 10 May: "The five-year-old (...) has stopped communicating by grunts and is walking normally. A source said: 'The grunts and growls it was suggested he and his brother Stefan used appear only to have been the excitement of their release.'"--Kathlutz (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have now removed text in section "Aftermath" on the grounds of WP:BLP in connection with WP:RELIABLE-Reliability in Specific Contexts-Pourly Sourced, and on the grounds of one-sidedness. See preceding comment. Further indication of the unreliability and one-sidedness of this source is the fact that it is also claims that the captives had no books, while F. said in his recent statements to his lawyer that he brought them books, and other sources have also mentioned that they had books.--Kathlutz (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"animal language". I have taken it out (see above) but need to add something. This isn't poor translation. I regard it as poor copywriting and offensive language (BLP issue). While the "cooing etc." comment can be traced to the police officer Etz who drove the two children (aged 5 and 18), who he described as very excited, during the short trip from the house to the hospital, he made no mention of "animal sounds" or "animal language". People do make funny sounds, excitement or a mental or physical handicap may be a reason - but do we say/does Wiki write these people make "animal" sounds? I hope not.--Kathlutz (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This Language Log post may be of interest when considering this issue. Perodicticus (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link!--Kathlutz (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"it's just a bit too hard to fathom that her children (...) find it exhausting to speak intelligibly especially when under the 24-hour care of a mother and television". I agree, and not because of my POV but rather because of the principle of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" WP:REDFLAG, and secondly, and I don't know if that's already somewhere in the Wiki policy rules, of the principle of "think before you write or believe any old rubbish". Nice little example, if trivial: on 28/4, the Guardian reports that investigators said there were hot plates for cooking in the cellar. So do many other papers. 10 days later, when Fritzl's extensive statement is released where he mentions that he installed a fridge and hot places in the cellar, the Guardian doesn't spot the error and prints "cooker" instead. This is easy to correct but other erroneous reporting, like the one about linguistic ability, especially once it has been summed up, headlined, rewritten, and fleshed out again, by a series of different information providers, is much harder to correct.--Kathlutz (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Please avoid the use of colloquialisms in the article. As all the references come from online newspaper accounts of the case, it is inevitable that colloquialisms will creep into the article but they must be removed. Please note that straight copying from a newspaper article is a copyright violation, Wikipedia:Copyrights

Tovojolo (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A small amount of direct quoting from a newspaper is fair use, so not a problem. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant to have said that straight copying from a newspaper article, other than in direct quotes, is a copyright violation, Wikipedia:Copyrights. Colloquialisms detract from the serious nature of an encyclopedic article. :) Tovojolo (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily colloquialisms but tying in with language use: we use "Fritzl" for perpetrator Josef Fritzl throughout, victims are Elisabeth, Rosemarie, Kerstin, officials are referred to by full name. I am not objecting, just observing. It's seen frequently in the papers, too. Is that NPOV for an encyclopedia? This must have been discussed on wiki before. What's the consensus? I propose to use "basement" for the whole underground part of the house and "cellar" for the part behind the heavy door. I propose to eliminate "dungeon" but can't really judge its suitability. I would object to "cellar children" and "second family" or "Fritzl's underground family" or similar if it crept up (it starts to appear in the media). I'll continue to add context unless I'm told otherwise and rely on you guys to iron out my linguistic deficiencies. Seems to work quite well from my POV ;-) Picking the correct tense and getting it right is the worst for me.--Kathlutz (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP early warning - Sunday Mirror

Exclusive in the Sunday Mirror of 11 May: "Dungeon girl Elisabeth Fritzl's first words revealed" (...) "Her sister (full name given), speaking for the first time" (...). Many details, presented as direct quotes of Elisabeth or her mother.

Daily Mail, The Age, others, follow suit: "Elizabeth's sister (full name and age given) speaking for the first time, told the UK's Sunday Mirror" and reprint or sum up the quotes.

Except she didn't. I was surprised that she would speak exclusively to a UK Sunday paper before she would speak to any Austrian newspaper or TV station at this point in time. The Austrian Oe24 doesn't shy away from reprinting the sister's quotes in German (I guess they did a back translation - the mind googles) but found out where the Mirror got its information from: "Apparently her sister (first name given, family name abbreviated) was the first family member who was allowed to visit "the Amstetten victims in the clinic. And the British reporter Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror reports what Elisabeth's sister later told neighbours" (my translation).

How do we deal with this. It will be all over the net and the media in no time.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! We have been dealing with these issues on Disappearance of Madeleine McCann for (sadly) over a year now. "The next door neighbour of the best friend of a waiter at the resort told paper X that..." The best we can do is study WP:BLP, WP:Verifiability and WP:Source carefully and be prepared to revert any edit that doesn't conform. I think there is a consensus on this article not to name any of the family who were not directly involved. Unless one of Elisabeth's sisters talks directly on the record (probably to ORF) we have to treat anything reported with extreme caution. In these circumstances, we wouldn't rely on the Mirror as a source, but of course if, as you say, this begins to be picked up by more reputable sources, it is tempting to add. But when it comes to WP:BLP, when in doubt, leave it out. Only things that can be shown to come "straight from the horse's mouth" or where the evidence is overwhelming or undisputed should be included. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My additions above are straight from the horses mouth, I still don't see what protection you are offering by obscuring this information, never mind worying about what rubbish the Mirror might print. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean? It's not about "obscuring information"; it's about only including things that pass the policies that I have listed above. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP articles, and unless we are absolutely sure of the source and the material is relevant to the article, it should not be included. Sometimes, less is more, especially when it comes to respecting people's privacy - no more so than when they have been the victims of crime. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[1] - sourced and relevant. It isn't worth worrying about rubbish from the Mirror when you can't even see this information is worthy of inclusion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OK Mick, try, for one second, to put yourself in Elisabeth's place. If you saw that, would you not feel it was an invasion of your privacy? Natasha Kampusch refuses to talk about her relationship with her kidnapper, stating quite rightly, "It's none of your business". Are the details of what Fritzl did to his daughter our business - unless Elisabeth specifically indicates she wants them to be? I don't think so. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You could apply that to any aspect of the contents of the article. The above is definitely a POV judgement, as this information is not a clear invasion of privacy, and obscuring it actually puts more doubt on reported facts of the case, not less, leaving space for exactly the kind of rumour and speculation you are talking about here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. The Kampusch article is a good guide. The facts are there, but the details are not, because the perpetrator is not around to reveal them against the victim's express wish, and she is not revealing them. Likewise, we have to assume, barring a statement to the contrary, that Elisabeth wants absolutely no details of her life in the cellar revealed, and certainly not the intimate details of sexual relationships. Until she says it's OK to include them (or they become part of the public record through a court case - and even then we should be cautious) we have to leave them out. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Mick, it's not straight from the horse's mouth. I explained already that the second removed sentence is a wrongly written up rendering of the statement - see here for comparison. The first removed part is also a slightly POV interpretation of what he said, again see here.--Kathlutz (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any major disagreement, only that maybe it wasn't a temporary measure, (that is how the Reuters article could be read, and was not placed as a direct quote), everything else agrees with that transcript. I think this is getting into the territory of severe pedantry, to the detriment of including basic important facts. MickMacNee (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been tempted for some time to replace the Reuter ref by the Guardian ref, which is already in the reflist because I consider it more useful to the reader. All the Reuter quotes are in the Guardian's list of quotes but they have used a different translation (no essential differences). The actual statement published by the Austrian magazine is much longer. Fritzl has not yet been convicted of raping his daughter or of incest. The Guardian quote is: "On his sexual desire for Elisabeth: [...] 'The urge to have sex with Elisabeth was growing stronger and stronger. I knew that Elisabeth did not want the things I did to her. I knew that I was hurting her.'" This does not amount to (Reuter quote): "He acknowledged that he knew that his rape of his own daughter 'was hurting her', but that his motive for carrying out the incest was ....", as it says in the removed text. I think this is close to putting words into his mouth he didn't say. Wow, I find myself in the awkward position of defending Fritzl's rights. I will now scurry off to find the Wiki rules I discovered yesterday about BLP and criminals who have not yet been convicted and whose appeal to their conviction has not yet been denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathlutz (talkcontribs) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't even know what your objections are anymore, I have no clue who is being claimed to be protecting here, Elisabeth or Joseph. The fact is, why is it OK to add details about sitting down for dinner and bringing presents, and not include the acknowledgement of wrong-doing and explanation of compulsion? You have mixed up my words, and the quotations, in the Reuters article; but as I said before, the differences being complained about now are sheer pedantry, ignoring the basic fact of what has/has not been removed, i.e. details of admitted motive. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if you can't see the difference between describing sitting down to a meal and a rape... Harry the Dog WOOF 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, if you can't see the relevance of documenting the stated motivation of a rape in this article of all others. You might as well remove the entire section if this is your interpretation of protecting privacy. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying there is justification for rape? If not, why should we care what his motivation was? And even f we did, we good describe the motivation without going into the details of the act. How Elisabeth was feeling, what her reaction was is for her to say (if she wants to) not Josef. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not justifying rape, quite the opposite, I am making it perfectly clear in the article that this was abuse, and acknowledged as that by the perpetrator. Unless you think it is better to leave it open to interpretation as to whether this was rape or a consensual act. Like I said elsewhere, you don't usually get a statement like this in these cases. I frankly can't see any logic in your position of selectively reporting quotes, claiming privacy. It's just odd given the cirsumstances and press attention this case has. MickMacNee (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think that our readers need that level of detail to know that what Fritzl did was wrong and that he knew it was wrong. The article makes it clear that it was rape in the lead and in other sections without going into details about what Elisabeth was experiencing. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it is respecting the privacy of the victim and not allowing ourselves to descend into tabloid journalism, which WP policies enjoin us against. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the Guardian/Reuters information I am talking about. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Mick, let me clarify: I don't approve of the 2 removed Reuter's passages because one is factually incorrect (Reuter's fault) and the other is a Reuter POV. I was happy to see that someone removed them (with a different justification). I agree with you in so far that I would not object to include other Fritzl quotes (in direct form or paraphrased), for example concerning his way of explaining his compulsion. Or the "vicious circle" he mentions. I myself wouldn't put in the "hurt her" part. It's a fine editorial line. Can I replace the Reuter ref by the Guardian ref - neutral, longer, contains all the quotes we discussed but translated slightly differently -, and the section can then be modified on that basis? We can rewrite ourselves, on the basis of the actual quotes, we don't have to quote how newspapers rewrite them. Be bold;-).--Kathlutz (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, I don't mind how it's worded, its the idea that not including it is a protection of privacy that I find ludicrous. And the idea that he knew he was "hurting" here is a central theme, if you remove it you open up the accusation that this was an invited/consensual relationship, an even bigger crime of ommission in my opinion. In many many other cases you wouldn't ever get an admission like this from the perpetrator. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me see. I am really aiming for a NPOV. The lawyer is a Vienna top lawyer. He has represented clients in cases with a huge media attention, see for example here (in English).--Kathlutz (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing that we have been dealing with on the McCann case, and it's actually a fairly minor one. Again, that is a case where issues arise because of different languages and different cultural expectations. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the value of including the following Fritzl quote, directly or correctly paraphrased, made public through his lawyer:

I am not a man who would molest children. It only started later, much later, when she was already underneath. The urge to have sex with Elisabeth was growing stronger and stronger. I knew that Elisabeth did not want the things I did to her. I knew that I was hurting her.

What does it say? He denies that he sexually abused her before she was 18 and incarcerated - that's contrary to what she is reported to have said, so WP:NPOV can be invoked in favour of including this part. He says that his desire to have sexual intercourse with her grew stronger with time - high encyclopedic value? I don't think so. He says that he knew then that she did not want it - "I know or knew it was wrong and did it anyway" is a common argument, it doesn't inform about motivation; what he or his lawyer say here and now is that he claims to have had a sense of wrongdoing - it can get you a more lenient court sentence. High encyclopedic value? I don't think so. He says now he knew then that he was hurting her - same as before. What else can you get out of the quote? He admits that he had sexual intercourse - it is known because 7 children were born, and that fact is mentioned already numerous times in the Wiki article. We are not reporting about the trial, these are not arguments heard in court. We are reporting what his lawyer wants the public to hear about him at this point in time. I say leave it out.--Kathlutz (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I just basicaly disagree with your analysis of the statements and judgements of encyclopoedic value, but I'm starting to lose the will to live. It is basic information, the reader can decide what to do with it, and do not need wikipedia editors to prevent them from coming to a conclusion (I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion from this that he has a defence, even if they acknowledge the lawyer might be trying it - but you want to remove the possibility of anyone even realising that for themselves). My point for including it is not to do his lawyers work, but make it clear that this was a knowing hurtfull act, but nonetheless committed anyway, driven by compulsion for incest, as opposed to say a consensual act, or motivated out of some other worse psychotic behaviour. MickMacNee (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The Wiki article says clearly that he is accused of rape. It even states it as a fact. It says that he has admitted that he had sex with her and against her will. Do we know have to add that he knew that he raped her and it hurt? The word "voyeurism" comes to mind. Right at the beginning of the paragraph, we have already a direct quote where he says he knew what he was doing was wrong. From a stricly NPOV, I can't get more factual information out of the above than the fact he claims to have had a sense of wrong doing and denies sexual abuse before the imprisonment of his daughter. What I personally think, is something different altogether.--Kathlutz (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for my lengthy contributions but it seems necessary to defend editorial decisions not based on "censorship" or purely BLP issues but on encyclopedic merit. I originally agreed that the part about bringing flowers and toys wasn't worth keeping. I still feel uncomfortable about it. However, all we had until a few days ago was "he went there every three days to rape her and bring food" (it is now worded a bit differently). It is obvious from the lawyer statement that he does not see it like this, he talks about his "second" "family" in the basement for which he tried to care as best as he could, as he puts it. It isn't easy to select and write up the most suitable parts from these quotes, and it makes me uncomfortable to even think about it and discuss it in a neutral way.--Kathlutz (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length

Yes, the relevance of the material is important but harder to decide upon than BLP aspects, since the criteria are not as obvious. The article should not get too huge; the "Josef Fritzl's Statement" - his or rather his lawyer-led self representation - is long enough. I've carefully nurtured the part about the construction, layout and equipment of the cellar, tried to slim it down. I feel it is of interest (it shows how long he has planned it, how much energy he put into it, and we have no visual representation yet) and it's a factual description but if it has to go, it has to go. The police have made it clear that they will not reveal much about the objects and conditions in the cellar (at least not officially, some stuff has been leaked already by individual investigators and technicians) because it concerns the privacy of the people who spent their lives there. The timeline could perhaps be slimmed down; some of it (how the children were found) - moved to "Case History". "Life in the Cellar" could also be merged with "Case History". I can't do it, my writing skills are not up to it.--Kathlutz (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"The article should not get too huge"... LOL. Ah, the innocence of a new editor! :-) Look at the McCann article. It takes half an hour to load, has over 200 references, and has been split in two! But it has achieved Good Article status! Harry the Dog WOOF 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, WP:NOT, so there is no need to worry about length. We do have to worry about quality, though :). I, confidently, predict that by 2009, this article will be more than 100kb in length and then, of course, Josef Fritzl's trial will take place in 2009 which will probably warrant a separate main article of its own. Hopefully, it won't be long before we get GA Status for this article. Tovojolo (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol, well, I'm determined to watch this space until the autumn of this year (I think that's when the trial may take place). Another thing: I think before this article get's GA status something has to be done about "Case history" because the paragraph about the adoption of Lisa and Monika now hangs in the air, after someone moved the preceding text to "Timeline".--Kathlutz (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Copyedited :) Tovojolo (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You think this article is long now, wait till it goes to trial... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Josef Fritzl Statement

I adapted the text, as discussed above. I did not change the content. There is stylistic repetition. Note that the headline in the referenced Guardian article is the Guardian's. This is NOT Fritzl's frank confession to Austrian prosecutors, as the Guardian's headline writer states. It is a part of a 12 page "confession" to his lawyer Rudolf Mayer and made public by him. The title for the paragraphs are also the Guardian's. Particularly odd is the Guardian's choice: "On the Nazis". The lawyer did not interview Fritzl on the Nazis. The answer under this Guardian header is Fritzl's reaction to the picture his neighbours have drawn of him as a father and family man in recent interviews. The statement, now removed from the Wiki article, that his remark that he is not the "beast as depicted in the media" refers to the "basement family" (who thought up that expression?) is the opposite of what he said. --Kathlutz (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now come across some more POV comments in the serious press (my POV) who regard these lawyer released Fritzl comments as PR strategy and pre-trial defense work. Several note or claim that Fritzl has admitted in these comments to facts and deeds he cannot deny in view of the investigation results and that he denies what he (still) can.--Kathlutz (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Twin name

I have removed the dead baby twin's name until more reliable sources are available. "Michael" seems to have its origin in the Bild (German Sun) tabloid, and then other media picked it up - the well-known multiplication effect. Once it's printed somewhere it must be true. As a matter of fact, the 4 children were not officially registered. Lenze (I think) said recently in an interview that it needed to be done by authorities but was a routine matter. The mother may well have given the baby a name but has it been made public by police or family? Same for exact day of death. _Reliable_ source?--Kathlutz (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that the name Michael is already in older sources listed in the ref list. Generally, is it necessary to give a reference for each and every bit, or for by now well known information? It is my impression that - at least long term - they are mainly necessary if the information is contested or little known.--Kathlutz (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The name is used in last week's large Spiegel and Stern articles about the case. I am somewhat opposed to its use in wiki, just a hunch that it may not be as official as they make it look (and we would make it look). The police press releases did initially use the first names of all 6 children but not of the baby. In any case, the 4 children were not recorded as even existing when the public and the authorities learnt about them. See also the WP:N/CA criminal acts proposal about crimes that receive intense media coverage and a reminder somewhere in WP:BLP that wiki editors should be careful of the feedback loop where unsourced or speculative contention in a wiki article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story.--Kathlutz (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Familys thank you poster

Yesterday the fritzl family released a hand written and decorated poster to the public as a gesture of thanks, each family member has their own hand print and comment. Shouldn't the details of this this be added to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I think the case is so extraordinary that the wiki article does not have to be restricted to crime and later trial reporting but may also include details about the aftermath (there is already a section), including the family's official contacts with the public, the media interest etc.--Kathlutz (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination failed

I am sorry to inform you that I have quick-failed Fritzl incest case as a Good article candidate. Under the relevant quick-fail criterion (no. 5), a quick-fail applies because this article "specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint" (ie, the subject is still under Police investigation, and a trial has yet to be held).

If you believe that I have applied the quick-fail criteria inappropriately, or have any other concerns about the conduct of this review, you can list the article on the Good article review page for discussion by other GA reviewers. Alternatively you may wish to wait until the article is complete, and then renominate it on the Good article candidates page. Please also feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, EyeSerenetalk 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think....

That Josef bears a striking resemblance to Heihachi Mishima from Tekken? I would include it but i have no account. (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Info on trial?

So, the article talks basically about everything except that. Where's Josef now? When will the trial be held? Or if there's no information on the trial, then just put "right now, there is no information on Josef's trial" or whatever. Any information on that is more important than things like the poster. I came here to see what's going to happen to that guy, not to learn about his dungeon. Can anyone add anything about that? --Cancerbero 8 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He has not been formally charged yet. The prosecutor saw him once, he was heard about biography, not about the crimes yet. He is kept in pre-trial confinement for another month, then extension will be decided upon, according to law. Prosecutor's office said that they will not even announce the date when he is questioned next. Investigation is still going on. Date for trial unknown but unlikely before autumn, say external commentators, his lawyer says it will not be this year. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--KathaLu (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)--KathaLu (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a fact based encyclopedia, we cannot guesss the future. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. WP:NOT Tovojolo (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on name?

Given the above discussion, can we agree that a consensus now exists to move this article to Fritzl case? Unless there is a new objection to this name, I hope an admin will make the move shortly. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done PeterSymonds (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"born" => "borne" (grammar)

I believe in the section that says "when he applied for the adoption of children born by Elisabeth", it should be "borne" instead of "born". Also, I think he adopted only one of the children and fostered the others. Fiddleval (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Valerie

Changed the grammar. "Borne" is the past participle of "to bear". If you read the "Case history" section, you'll see the adoption and fostering of the children is all explained there. Tovojolo (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Gas threat

The Wikipedia entry currently says: "Fritzl told Elisabeth that she would be gassed if she tried to escape.[10] Technicians have not yet found out if this was more than an empty threat.[citation needed]"

Here is a news article which says that the gas threat was a "bluff":'s-threats-to-gas-cellar-family-were-'a-bluff'-Police.html

Perhaps the Wikipedia sentence could be changed to "However, this appears to have been an empty threat since technicians have been unable to find any gas pipes to the area."? Fiddleval (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You quote from the magazine. What kind of a source is it? Is it reliable? Please be careful about sources. The fact that some online source pops up in Google News doesn't make that source a reliable source!
BTW, it's an online magazine, located in Estonia, and sourced by "volunteer writers".
It is correct to say that investigation has found that there were no devices to lead gas into the hidden cellar. All gas pipes lead into the flats in the house. See Austrian sources and for example the Telegraph article - Threats were bluff - please note that this Telegraph article contains a factual mistake. It says that "the heavy steel and concrete door to the dungeon, which weighs over 300kg and is operated by a remote-controlled electronic device, has not yet been inspected by police". That is nonsense. Police have inspected this main access door. What they have not yet done is this: check whether the electronic device could be set up in such a way that it would open after a certain time, as Josef Fritzl has claimed in his comments, published by his lawyer in the News magazine article.--KathaLu (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Fiddeval, but we do have stringent sourcing requirements on high-profile articles and The Cheers looks questionable. The thing is, however, that unless a news item is somehow exclusive it'll propagate fast, so if you find an unreliable source you can wait for a while and take your pick of better ones. (At which point someone's already beaten you to it, but nothing's perfect.) --Kizor 11:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
News does travel fast on the web and in the press but also morphs during its journey and information about how a press report saw the day of light in the first place gets lost along the way, and speculation or fabrication is eventually wrongly represented as fact. The initial English language source for the information about the empty threat is a Telegraph article, dated 15 May, author is "Andreas Sam in Vienna". An Estionian website article, dated 2 days later, with no author name given, should raise red flags. The same applies to the more or less anonymous copycat articles "from London" that appear in Thai Indian News and Daily India with a 1 day delay. Even when they turn out to be factually correct, as is the case here, they should be checked against other sources (all this applies to current events in Austria, not other reporting). --KathaLu (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, is someone going to add it? The Telegraph writes: "But after over two weeks of investigating the dungeon, police revealed that his threats were a bluff aimed to pre-empt any attempts of escape, as there were no gas pipes leading into (the) family’s subterranean dwelling." The original source for this information, the Austrian Kurier newspaper writes that a source in the Lower Austrian Office of Criminal Investigation (they don't give a name of the person from whom they claim to have learnt it) has let them know that investigators found lots of things but no gas pipe leading to the cellar; that there is a gas pipe but it leads from the road directly into the residential part of the house.--KathaLu (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Done :) Tovojolo (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Extension of Josef Fritzl's background

There is already talk of changing the name of the article to Josef Fritzl or Elizabeth Fritzl. While both options seem valid to me it may also be valid to give Josef Fritzl a seperate page. In order to be legitemate enough to give the Josef Fritzl title a seperate page, however, more information on his background would be required. The details on his background would provide a good base for the psychological and sociological underpinnings in this case. Included in this extension could be more details about his family, his family setting (language, religion, home conditions, etc.), and upbringing. Giving him a seperate page once the section on his background is researchered would also allow comparison to other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eios1234 (talkcontribs) 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush. This article should evolve slowly, over time, as reliable information is made available. If a separate article is eventually needed it will be created. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no rush, however, I believe the psychological aspect of Josef Fritzl's background is very important. I believe a lot more evidence will present itself during the trial and may begin to delve deeper into his psychological condition. I believe that the information on the page, however, is not currently enough to get a good understanding of his background, which is why I am asking if anyone has more detailed information on his childhood, etc.Eios1234 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Eios1234

Investigation on photographs given to the press.

I think a section on the two photographs given to the press should also be added. While diagrams and details have been released, not many photographs of the dungeon have come up. The two photographs that were released provide what little visual evidence that has been given to the press so far. I believe it may be important to point out the details in these photographs to better understand the conditions of the dungeon. This may be done best through a subsection that has the details about the dungeon? Maybe labled as dungeon police photographs? Let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eios1234 (talkcontribs) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The photos are copyright. We cannot add them. There is no rush. This article should evolve slowly, over time, as reliable information is made available. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
While the photos may indeed be copyright, we were not asking you to add them. And while there is no "rush", the reliability and validity of these photographs will not change. We are not trying to "rush" this article, just add to it's validity friend. What we were really asking for was suggestions on how to approach these photographs (again the only visual evidence of the dungeon) in this article without being able to put them up. I would suggest looking at this article as a research piece, that way you can really understand what to include to the extent that it can and strengthening the foundation of it, this way you may feel that it is not being "rushed". Eios1234 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Eios1234

Reminder for editing suggestions and editing

  • Consider relevance of information for article, no trivia.--KathaLu (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Life threatening" should be hyphenated

In the Investigation section, where it says "admitted with life threatening kidney failure", it should say "life-threatening" since the two words are being used together to function as an adjective. Fiddleval (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, in the same section, "24 year absence" should be "24-year absence", and "an anonymous tip off" should be "an anonymous tip-off". (This last one appears in both the Investigation section and the Key Events section.) Fiddleval (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also in Key Events, "decades long imprisonment" should be "decades-long imprisonment". Fiddleval (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes to "decades-long", "24-year", and "tipoff"!  :) however, it still says "life threatening" without a hyphen in the sections "Elisabeth and her children" and "Investigation". Fiddleval (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad you recognize that too -- I actually made the edits before reading what you pointed out, so I didn't catch the last one. If there's nothing preventing you as a user from making legitimate edits, by all means do so. Thanks! Twalls (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Steel company

I added the name of the VOEST steel company but feel now that it should be left out for BLP reasons, reasons of irrelevance and consistency. The names of his other (much smaller) employers are not given for the same reasons. It's useful to mention that it was in Linz as he was convicted for a rape in Linz during the time he worked there. VOEST is a large plant/conglomerate/or similar - can someone please remove the name and describe the company appropriately. Also, one should perhaps add, in as few words as possible, that the job in Linz was not immediately followed by the job in Amstetten as he did a stint in prison between these two jobs.--KathaLu (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Tovojolo (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had added the middle name "Stefan" to Fritzl's name but removed it now. It was in the big SPIEGEL story but I don't see it anywhere else, especially not in the Austrian press, not even in earlier articles containing biographical data. So, "when in doubt leave it out" ;-).--KathaLu (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The note in the pocket + other irregularities

1. On the referenced BBC page with Fritzl's profile, there is a recording of a BBC telephone interview, entitled, strangly enough, as: "Doctor found note from victim". In it, Dr. Reiter is asked how he found the note, and he replies: "The note was brought by the man who said he is the grandfather of (Kerstin), one hour after admission of (Kerstin) to our hospital". Then he is asked whether he had met the man, and he says, he did, he came to the hospital to see him, one hour after Kerstin's admission.

So this needs to be corrected. Doctors didn't find the note in her pocket when she was in the hospital, as the wiki article says. Instead it was "found" by Fritzl when he "found" Kerstin outside his home.

2. The sequence of events for 25-26 April is not quite right. I don't think Elisabeth and the boys were released on 25 April already. As far as I can make out, from TV interviews of Polzer and police press release, they "appeared" on the evening of 26 April.

It seems that they were released by Fritzl from the underground prison on the evening of 26 April, together with Elisabeth.

According to Polzer (police), Elisabeth spoke to the police around midnight. Rosemarie, Elisabeth [and her 5 children were brought to the therapy center during the evening/night from 26 April to 27 [[April.

So, the entries for 25 April and 26 April in the "Key events" section should be merged into one "26 April" entry.

3. The above is not my POV, it's the best I can get out of the sources I've looked at (quite a few!!!), with their sometimes conflicting, dubious or downright wrong little bits of information.--KathaLu (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Tovojolo (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Updated the part on the note in the Investigations section but we need to update the reference. Do you have an updated reference for it ? Tovojolo (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. I updated the reference. I had quoted it in the first line of this section. You didn't listen to the BBC interview first to check whether it was true what I wrote? ;-).--KathaLu (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If you say it's true then it must be, I trust you :) Tovojolo (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Something else, I am just curious: have a look at this postcard seen by the Daily Mail. Much as I try, the postmark doesn't say 21 April 2008, as the Mail claims (2 days after Kerstin was taken to hospital), it says 1 April 2008. Surely, the Mail would not lie so obviously, would they? Here's the close-up--KathaLu (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a crease or a tear to the left of the figure 1. The 2 could easily be obscured there. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the WP:NOR principle, and the postcard/Italy holiday are not mentioned in the Wiki article, so it's not of the utmost importance. I am just puzzled that there seems to be no mention, neither in the English nor German/Austrian press, until the Mail said so on 19 May, that Rosemarie was absent from Amstetten when Kerstin was found. It took them 4 weeks to find this out?? Or is it mentioned earlier?--KathaLu (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The holiday postcard is yet another reminder to be wary of taking every little detail being reported at face value and incorporating it into the Wiki article straight away. Look at these quotes to admire the way the reporting changes (dates when first appeared in Google News):

  • "A postcard seen by the Daily Mail" - Sunday Mail, 15 May 2008
  • "Rosemarie (...) sent home a postcard ... It is believed Fritzl was trying to get his daughter treated in hospital and back into the house before Rosemarie returned." - The Sun, 15 May 2008
  • "His deception of his wife was uncovered after the Mirror obtained a postcard" - Mirror, 16 May 2008
  • "His deception was revealed with the discovery of a post card" - Telegraph, 16 May 2008
  • "Investigators (!) found a postcard sent from Italy by Josef Fritzl's wife, The Telegraph reports (!)" - United Press International (!), 16 May 2008
  • It has emerged that Rosemarie, [...] sent home a postcard - our friend, The Cheers, from Estonia, 16 May 2008

Common sense says to be wary (that's not original research!) of the validity of such revelations (which may well be true!), as well as their relevance, as the police don't give out any more private details, and one cannot but wonder that they supposedly needed to discover a postcard to find out if and when Rosemarie Fritzl was on holiday, since information from neighbours and for example one of her sisters seems to flow freely, and if she was indeed on holiday, I doubt it was a state secret.--KathaLu (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation of article

I swapped some sections around; it was necessary to add one section headline ("discovery") in Investigation, I couldn't think of a better wording; I added section headline "Media interest" in Aftermath, there is only one sentence at the moment, should there be something about the photographers at the clinic? I was also surprised to read here today that 2 "lucrative" deals for unauthorized books about Josef Fritzl and family were already signed and a third deal was about to be signed.--KathaLu (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Several incidents with photographers near the clinic where the family is treated are reported; increased security, with external security staff drawn in; one guard was attacked by an intruding photographer with a (baseball?) bat and injured; article in Austrian paper today which talks of "foreign paparazzi" and refers to the hope that the "aggressive reporters", "in particular from the English media" will leave.--KathaLu (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Channel 4 documentary on Josef Fritzl

Channel 4 in Britain broadcast a documentary nationwide on Josef Fritzl today, Wednesday 21 May 2008. They mentioned the Fritzl home address twice. I do not see any point in Wikipedia concealing the address when it has been publicly broadcast by a national television channel and is freely available on the Internet. We must not act as if we are the only source of information.

Tovojolo (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked carefully, but I don't think you can find the address of La Scala on wikipedia either. I believe that's not because it's secret, but because the editors of that article didn't feel it had encyclopaedic value. Does the address of the Fritzl house have encyclopaedic value?--Noe (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Try searching for 1 World Trade Center and see where it leads you. If nothing else, anyone searching for the address should be redirected to this article. I have made my arguments before as to why the crime scene is as much a part of this story as other aspects, and ought to be identified. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree but won't object either - this may well be a cultural thing - but for the life of me I cannot see what long term value the street name and number will bring to this article and a readership who, in the majority, hardly knows where Amstetten or Lower Austria is (I certainly couldn't place either, and I am geographically closer than most). There are homes of murder scenes that have become infamous - 10050 Cielo Drive is a better example than the Trade Center or the Scala - but here? What can be the purpose, other than Wikipedia knows and/or can tell you how to get there? And just in case no one noticed it: I have been busy taking out stuff that I had put in myself because I thought it was interesting when I saw it in the papers (that his mother gave him a good education; what his job function was). Yes, it may be relevant if we are writing a novel or hoping to cash in on a bestseller, or even if we try to grasp how he became what he is but is it relevant for an encyclopedic article of this type? No.--KathaLu (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
25 Cromwell Street also redirects to Fred West. I think that is the minimum, as some people will know the address or at least the street and search for it. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said, it is perhaps a UK(also US?) media peculiarity - not only that the street is named in the beginning when the story breaks but gets repeated so often that it remains prominent in public knowledge. Dutroux - would you know the street? House number? It's not even in the French wiki version. I do remember the town name, though.--KathaLu (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
And, unlike in murder cases, this isn't a murder case as such. It's crimes within a family and in a house that is (was?) home to several persons, who are very directly affected, such as Mrs. Fritzl who must have lived there at least 24 years, and the 3 teenagers she raised. We don't know whether the family wants to keep the house. So saying, tough luck, your house is notorious now ... I don't feel comfortable with it.--KathaLu (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Dutroux used several houses. The difference is that the addresses weren't made public in that case. It has been in this case, including being perfectly visible on the postcard in the link you posetd! Harry the Dog WOOF 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, by The Sun. They don't say how they got the card. It doesn't seem to have been picked up elsewhere, certainly not in Austria. I do think it was stamped 1 April, not 21 April. It is amazing. I'd love to write an article about the way the press reports current news.--KathaLu (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The address of Dutroux's house with the dungeon was made public, of course, and during the trial even the jurors were taken there - very publicly. It took me about 5 minutes to find the address in Google. It was printed in the press (including the UK), named on TV.--KathaLu (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not checked a lot of references; I suppose they could answer the following question: Has the address become notorius, perhaps almost synonymous in the public with the case itself?
  • If yes, I think we should include the address in the article, and also redirect from the address to the article - whether we like it or not.
  • If no, that is, if the address is merely mentioned by the press, I think we should ask ourselves what good this information is doing here; is it of encyclopaedic value? I think it isn't.--Noe (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, in the cases cited (West, Soham, Manson, Dutroux), one can at least justify some need to refer to the location of the crime scene because the victims were taken to the house, or went to the house, or the perpetrators drove to the house, and the movements are of interest to the case. Here, everything happened inside the house. In fact, that's one of the MAIN aspects of the case.--KathaLu (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
But that is also why the house itself can be seen as so important. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The other point is that Wiki is not only a provider of information but also a multiplyer of information. And the Fritzl family are known only for one single event, and living persons. I googled the addresses for the Manson, Soham, West and Dutroux cases. Dutroux was less obvious, as the address is often given incorrectly (rue, chaussée, avenue, route).
  • "10050 Cielo Drive": about 12,000 hits, Wikipedia is the first hit
  • "25 Cromwell Street": about 18500 hits, youtube first, wikipedia second
  • "5 college close": 751 hits, BBC first, Guardian second, then a blog
  • Dutroux road, Dutroux number: a page with a list of newspaper articles first, Guardian second; if correct address is entered, about 130 hits, mostly a smattering of newspaper articles and blogs.--KathaLu (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)