1) Clean up the references. Perhaps put them in some kind of logical order (or even just date order)
2) Stop the doubling up.
3) Make evidence presented more concise.
4) Display it better. For example, prosecution argument vs defence argument as sections.
5) Consider separating trial/case from Peter Falconio biography to aid in clean up.
6) Move trial evidence to R v Murdoch, rename Peter Falconio disappearance to Peter Falconio (with redirect), and make Peter Falconio page more concise.
7) Depending on verdict, do the following:
A) If Murdoch found guilty, no appeal, keep basically as is, but get rid of basically all references of "allegedly" since we can say that he definitely did it, and we can also legally say that Falconio was murdered - hence restore such things as category: murder victims etc. There will also likely be some discussion about him being "world's worst murderer" or something of the like, so we can include things like that in here.
B) If Murdoch found not guilty, no appeal, note it in article that he was found not guilty, and write up a section about what options are believed to have happened, namely:
i) Falconio faked his own death - discuss this in depth in article as to why this is believed.
ii) Lees murdered Falconio - go over media reports from 2001/02 which especially talked about this.
iii) Someone else murdered him - go over links to other suspects who actually matched Lees' original description
C) If Murdoch found guilty, appeal by defence, then withhold on most things, as we can't really say either way while it is under appeal.
D) If Murdoch found not guilty, appeal by prosecution, then we can tentatively add extra sections (per B) but realistically probably not.
8) Get a copy of court transcripts ASAP. I don't know if this will be quick or slow however. Supreme Court typically closes from Dec-Feb so we might be waiting as long as March 06 for them (unless someone wants to order their own copy just for Wikipedia!). However, the coverage of the trial may mean that they are speedily made available. Court transcripts should go in R v Murdoch but a quick reference here wouldn't hurt. A quick summation I mean.
9) What to do with James Hepi? Being a drug smuggler isn't hugely notable, and being used by defence is possibly notable, I'm not sure. Should the article be deleted/merged/redirected?
Most of this probably needs to wait until the trial is completed though. For now perhaps just tolerate its untidiness.
Update (23/11/05): I've done most of it, but just the bulk of evidence produced in the trial needs to be tidied somehow. I don't know how to do it though. I seem to be the only one adding anything from the trial (mostly from google searches I do daily on the topic) so perhaps its my responsibility to tidy it all up. Its hard to do though. Perhaps could consider putting it in to a more logical order. Perhaps even make a new title, for example The Queen vs Bradley John Murdoch and then talk about the trial there. That might make it easier to separate it all. Of course, court transcripts would be handy too, as media releases have been known to be inaccurate. A lot of the things mentioned in the trial have talked about the inaccuracies of media releases prior to the trial, where they tried to paint Murdoch as the killer after his arrest, or of course before he was found how they tried to paint Lees as the killer. It's just hard to do. I'd probably rather see 2 sections though - one for Peter Falconio and one for The Queen vs Bradley John Murdoch. Forget about the Peter Falconio disappearance page. That's my opinion though. But then again, Peter Falconio is really only notable because of his alleged death. Of course, if he is alive and they find him, he'd still be notable! 203.122.225.241 15:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Update (26/11/05): My current thoughts are that we need to excerpt a lot of this in to separate articles. I have tentatively created James Hepi and The Queen vs Bradley John Murdoch but need consensus. I think that this would greatly help with cleanup. I envisage that this article, about Peter Falconio, be relatively short. After all, other than the disappearance, he is not notable at all. But I would rather see the trial itself in a different place, for many reasons. One reason is that this is unlikely to be the final trial in the matter - not unless Murdoch does an aboutface and confesses to everything and says that he acted alone. No matter which way it goes, there will either be an appeal or else someone else will be prosecuted. Not to mention that things will have to be reopened if and when we either find Peter Falconio's body or find Peter Falconio alive. Would greatly appreciate more input in to these decisions. Zordrac 19:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Update (9/12/05): I have striked through most of the original 5 on the To Do list. Only really the tidy needs to be done. I have also added more for future to do list actions, for when the trial is complete. As the trial is nearing its final days, this is becoming important to note that our work here is not yet done! I imagine that this trial will probably still be talked about for the next 5 or 10 years, and will be referenced in movies, future trials, and so forth. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)