Talk:Timeline of the Casey Anthony case

A GREAT ARTICLE

This Timeline article is great. Mugginsx (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is "she"?

"June 25, 2008 — Cell phone records show she was in the area of her parents’ home." The previous sentence lists three females. Which one of those three does this refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Engel (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That would obviously be Casey...I believe. I'll put "Casey" there, just to make it clearer. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Need to reference every item

Per WP:BLP. Many refs already in the main article but make sure they actually include fact that they are referencing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a few things that are questionable (most I haven't heard of them and/or overly negative) and I'll remove if not sourced soon, FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to remove anything really from the Timeline article, as everything actually IS "sourced", but the "ref names" were just not put after every date yet. But the citation reference from timeline webpages of Casey Anthony are already in the article. In a few spots already. It just has to be placed in many more. But everything there is verifiable and verified. So that should NOT be the reason to remove any of the dated events there. It'll just be a bit tedious to one-by-one put them in each spot. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because something is tedious, doesn't mean we should not do it, especially if it's BLP related. Plus it's a good way to double check some of the references in the article since of the dozen or so I've checked, at least 1/3 were dead or did NOT say what the editor claimed they said. I'll do some of it for things I've checked or as I check. In meantime just to show we are trying to get it cleaned up, will put back the tag. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Simplifying/Matching the lede

Hi Hashem sfarim. Personally, I think it is redundant to include the lede from the main article here on the timeline daughter article. By keeping it to a single short statement with the appropriate links, it guides the reader back to the main article and avoids the problem of the texts (between the two articles) diverging over time. However, if you think we should include it, the least we can do is match the text and picture for consistency. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that in this particular article there should not be heavy verbiage in the intro, but there should be a basic summation of the article, as the intro, that the actual timeline greatly expands on. In other words the lede here should be what the case is, in a very basic nutshell. I mean, for a wile this article HAD NO LEDE OR INTRO AT ALL. It was very bad that way, and incomplete. The very first line you put I like, but there should be a WEE bit more meat in the lede than that. But I agree that it should not be so long. Anyway, I see the re-done lede you did, and per "WP:OWN" I did not touch that, but I did not like the picture you put (that I also see in the main article). As this article deals more specifically (as you can see that I said in my edit comment) with the Casey Anthony arrest and trial CASE. So the mug shot of her indictment is much more apropos for the intro image, than the smiley one before. But the new lede that you did I left alone. Anyway, I put more ref names in some of the date events. Per tag. All the refs that support each statement in the timeline are in the References section. The "ref name" discovery, etc. They just have to be placed one by one, and it would be a bit tedious. But it's being done. This article is pretty good. It's appreciated by quite a few people. It just needs some polishing and little work here and there. But again, the lede now is ok, I guess. But my point is having just one little sentence for the lede (IMO) was not quite enough. It needed a bit more substance. Though not too long either. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I don't really have a lot of heartburn with the lede being longer than the introductory sentence, just as long as it maintains consistency with the main article. Glad you liked how the introductory sentence was framed. On the picture, I am still mulling that over right now because of WP:MUG. This timeline article pertains more directly to the mother's trial rather than the daughter's death - totally agree on that - but Casey Anthony is still a living person and prominent placement of the mug shot from her October 2008 indictment for murder presents her in a disparaging light when she was actually found not guilty of murder in the trial. The exact wording from WP:MUG is:

"Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed."

Therefore, just like it was handled in the main article, it would probably be more appropriate to insert the mug shot down inside the timeline at its respective location and context, and use a non-mug shot in the prominent lede position (perhaps the photo of both the Anthony's together, or something representative of the trial). Please let me know your thoughts on that after you've consulted the policy and mulled it over as well. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

She was not just charged with murder, though. But also with four counts of lying to police. Which she WAS found "guilty" of. And convicted. And sentenced to four years in prison for. The mug shot is apropos. "Disparaging light" or not. It's accurate. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Those were misdemeanor counts; on balance, she was found not guilty of the far more serious charges which carried death penalty weight and made the case (and her notoriety) a national media sensation. Given the outcome at trial, putting a mug shot in the prominent lede position is probably inappropriate when there are better alternatives. Are you aware of other living person articles where WP:MUG is being ignored this way? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessariliy agree that it's "being ignored" or violated. Because you're going on a wrong assumption that if a person was cleared or acquitted of the "more serious charges" that that somehow negates the pertinence of a picture to a specific type of article. The point is she was INDICTED on all those charges, and that "mug shot" is dealing specifically with that, and with the drift of the article, and its subject matter. The other picture that you put on there, of both of them smiling, does not really pertain (much) with the tone and tenor and substance of THIS article. So? She was acquitted of the more serious charges? And? Does that make that much of a difference that she was indicted and tried for all that? And also found guilty on the less serious charges...that that mug shot also pertains to? Even if she was found not guilty of EVERYTHING...the mug shot would fit this article, as (again) it deals with the subject matter a lot better than the other shot. Now IF this article was about Casey Anthony's whole life IN GENERAL...and she accomplished a lot of things before and after (hypothetically) having little to nothing to do with being tried for crimes, THEN the "WP:MUG" issue would be there. And "disparaging light" unduly. But it seems you're maybe momentarily forgetting that THIS VERY ARTICLE is somewhat "negative" and "disparaging" to Casey Anthony. She lied to police and led them on a stupid wild goose chase. That's IN the article itself. And even if she was cleared of lying (which she wasn't, but convicted of) the mug shot is still relevant to the whole article in substance. That's just a fact. So no, "WP:MUG" in THIS article (not a general article about Casey, cuz then I'd agree with you...) does NOT apply. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we've sorted out fairly quickly that we should agree to disagree on the mugshot photo in the lede.  :) Maybe we should let other editors comment on it? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you ignored and dodged my point. That the mug shot is pertinent to THIS type of article. And that this is not just some general article about Casey. But is an article that deals SPECIFICALLY with her case and indictment etc. What's to "disagree" about that? Are you saying that this SPECIFIC article has nothing to do with her indictment and the picture involving that? Did you get the point of my previous comment posting? The point again is that "WP:MUG" would seem to apply more if this was just some article about Casey's life in GENERAL. A general article about Casey's life and bio. And then it could be considered "too disparaging" to place an unflattering mug shot picture on it. Then I would AGREE with you. But if the VERY ARTICLE ITSELF deals with that specific subject matter... Then what's to "disagree" with, as far as my point? You dodged it, instead of actually addressed it.

The policy states "if it is used out of context." Well, you failed to demonstrate how this mug shot is "out of context" TO THIS SPECIFIC ARTICLE. The article here PERTAINS to the situation with the mug shot. Therefore relevant. So, in that case, "WP:MUG" logically would not really apply. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any disparity in using the image as primary to this article. My76Strat ^talk 03:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(in response to Hashem sfarim) Okay, just so that I understand you clearly, you feel that the mug shot taken of her at the time of her indictment for murder is the most relevant and best possible photograph for use in the prominent lede position here on the timeline article? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it's fairly clear. My point was that this article is about Casey's MURDER, ABUSE, AND LYING CASE AND TRIAL. So the mug shot obviously logically PERTAINS to the overall point and specifics of THIS article. If it was just a general article about Casey Anthony, I'd be on your side. That that mug shot would not really belong there in the lede area. But this article is specifically dealing with her indictment, her case, etc. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What about a photo in which she is seated at the defense table, during the course of the trial? It would offer several advantages over a low resolution mug shot in that it would be clearer, sharper, and more representative of the entire five week trial rather than just the snapshot moment of her booking at the time of her indictment for murder. It would also be a much more iconic image given that the trial was televised and drew millions of viewers and commentators. If the copyright status of such an image was not a problem, would you agree that was a better choice? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be alright, because it pertains to the sum and substance of this article. Do you know of any such available picture like that? Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at the moment, but if such a photo becomes available, I'm glad we agree that would be a better choice. I will continue to look. In doing research just now, I did discover that the current mug shot photo is not from her October 2008 indictment, it's just one of long series of "later" mug shots (apparently it's from May 2011, when she was briefly transferred for a week to the Pinellas County jail from the Orlando trial facility). The closest thing we have to a mug shot taken at the time of her indictment and arrest is the one that is currently on the main article under the "arrest" section - in the light blue shirt - which is also the mug shot most people saw when her case became a sensation in the national media. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

After reflecting on it, we should change the mug shot picture in the lede from the May 2011 photo to the better known July 2008 photo associated with her arrest, for the following reasons:

1. The July 2008 photo is more closely associated with case; people saw it for years in the media during the pendency of the precedings in the timeline article and all the social media hype in this case. The May 2011 photo has significantly less association and is just one of many mug shots that came later in the case.

2. The May 2011 is slightly more grainy in appearance. Not sure why. Also, in the July 2008 photo, she is looking more directly at the camera.

3. The licensing and copyright data for July 16, 2008 photo on Wikimedia correctly identifies the date it was taken. For some reason, the editor who uploaded the May 2011 photo used the day he or she uploaded the file rather than the date it was taken, making it an unknown.

4. For consistency, the main article to this timeline article uses the July 2008 photo as well.

5. By using the July 2008 photo, we can adjust the caption back to something like "Casey Anthony at the time of her arrest on July 16, 2008", or something like that, rather than "Casey Anthony <approximate date>".

Can you think of some good reasons why we should use the May 2011 photo over the July 2008 photo instead? AzureCitizen (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The only reasons I can think to keep the current picture is because it was more current and in line with the time of the TRIAL itself. (Also, she looks better in the current one than in the original arrest mug shot...at least in a way.) But that it was more updated for the trial. Not necessarily the whole 3 year case...that's true. But the trial was crescendo of the whole case. I don't know... But also, what happened to that thing you mentioned about a picture of her sitting (or standing) in court or something? Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think the courtroom picture would be the best way to go, but it may be some time before the licensing issue for such a photo could be resolved. There are several good candidates if you Google search for "Casey Anthony Courtroom" and click on <images> but the copyrights are all held by the press. In the interim, we should use the July 16, 2008 photo for Reason #1 above more than anything else, and it's more symbolic of the overall timeline for the case than a recent mug shot. Okay, last comment for me tonight; I am turning in for sleep... AzureCitizen (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Consistency

I just matched the lede from the main article to the daughter article again and discovered a couple unexpected items popped out after the fact, the most important of which was that the date Cindy Anthony reported her daughter missing was July 15, not July 18. I will quickly go correct that here and on the main article again in just a moment, but wanted to recommend going forward from here that any edits to the lede would be best made on the main article first, then copied here, to avoid the recurring problem I've seen happen over the years between two Wikipedia parent-daughter articles that start out with the same text, then diverge into inconsistencies over time. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed last night that the lede said "July 18th" that Cindy reported it, and it was just plain wrong and non-chronological, and made no sense. (Are you saying that the date was wrong in the main article too?) So I had changed it last night. Not sure why you changed it back (only to change it back to the correct date again.) How could Cindy report it on the 18th, if Casey was arrested on the 15th? No, Cindy reported on the 15th, and everything happened that day. Which is why I also elaborated and made it clearer in the actual timeline 2008 section, for July 15. Because it was a little hazy and unclear on the "July 15" situation. Now it's SUPER CLEAR. As it should be. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch on your part. It's been wrong in the lede of the main article all this time... AzureCitizen (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I was re-doing my comment, and added stuff. Re-read it. (I was asking why you changed it only to change it back again...etc) I guess now I understand though. It was wrong in the main article to begin with. Yikes. Well it looks like this secondary article here has been instrumental in catching a careless and anachronistic dating mistake in the main article. It's all good. Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

Why is this here? 19 sources not sufficient? Quite confused. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment from 25 July says, "... since article itself doesn't always have correct refs (good cross check) and this is BLP matter) ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Engel (talk • contribs) 10:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

At editors requests, every item needs a ref. After I finish working on the actual article I hope to add a bunch, but there's only so much editing time in the world... Feel free to add some yourself, including from Death of Caylee Anthony. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The "ref names" are already there. They don't really need to be looked up outside of the article. They just need to be placed and tagged right at the end of each dated event (the ones that don't have them, that is.) But the actual are "references" are there in general, in the "References" section...etc. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Objectivity and honesty is elusive when "the mob rules".

This article serves no productive purpose, nor is it complete and objective in its inclusion of certain "facts". It leaves very large gaps in the timeline. Also, shouldn't the article be utilizing facts and not a journalistic style similar to other verifiable articles. It should be quoting the public records, to include the available evidence and facts presented to the jury and considered in the jury deliberation.

I should really not expect this article to be objective. This article and many others will certainly be questioned and deemed inappropriate once Wiki is contacted by the legal counsel for the persons that it maligns. Have at it and how about adding something juicy. Objectivity is very evasive at wiki once the mob forms and demands redress of a criminal mis-justice.

It would also appear that wiki is also racist and prejudiced when comparing the Anthony articles to the OJ Simpson articles. I am sure that this is somehow justified by the prejudical "contributing" editors who only desire to inject their own feelings, emotions and sense of justice. 184.32.1.212 (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)184.32.1.212 (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with almost everything you said here. The only thing you MIGHT have a point about is some "gaps" in the timeline. Uh, but it's called improving and working on it some more. So what? If anything, though, some have argued that there is TOO MUCH in the timeline, even some things that some editors may consider a bit unimportant or "trivial". It depends. But even so, there IS a "productive purpose" with this article, as many people have appreciated the chronicle format and concise run-down of events and dates pertaining to this case. For quick reference. How is this article "racist"? How this article "mob rule"? How exactly is this article so "non-objective"? This article is just a matter-of-fact record of the happenings and key occurrences of this case. As neutral as possible. No article is 100% perfect. (Only God is perfect.) But I don't see what the big fuss is about here. It's just a timeline of what happened with Casey Anthony and her trial etc. And it has merits. According to you, though, it's totally worthless and just plain bad. That goes beyond "over-statement". Your section is just plain 99% wrong! You have failed to point out actual specifics and examples of just where it's supposed this way or that way, as you claimed. The article is not perfect, but overall so far, it's fine... Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can agree to disagree. It is true that many line items are trivial, as you stated and really serve no purpose or played any part in the criminal case against Anthony. The time line should really be more factual, as presented in the criminal case. Everything else is a subject of debate about whether it is accurate, important or even relevent to the case. I believe that the meter reader first reporting the body (ignored by the proper authorities)in the lot (in July) is important enough to be included. This would include the prosecution inability to provide a cause of death in the death of the child. How about the fact that no DNA evidence was found to link the stench in the truck to that of a dead body and the duct tape was not able to be linked to the same roll found in the Anthony home? What exactly do the gas cans contribute to the case in point. This case is a very highly charged one, which is understandable. However, the true evil doers in this tragedy are the police, state attornies and the media for feeding the frenzy that contributed to this person being charged with a crime that could never be proved in a court of law. I also believe that the State Attorney resigning immediately after his ineptness in the preparation of this case, which was apparent to all Florida residents is also very relevent. This is just a few of the mistakes and facts that were omitted in your article.184.32.55.35 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on the main article right now but will look at this at some point and see if I agree with your comments about current contents. Biased info should not be put in under guise of a timeline. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To IP address above... Well those things that are missing, which arguably do have a place in the article, why haven't you simply put them in yourself, and dated them? And sourced them? Why not improve the article that way? To balance out some of the facts mentioned that you feel may be a bit prejudicial? Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Starting to reference; Importance of gas cans?

I've just made up a good time line from three good time lines and am going to do a lot of work referencing and adding important missed items, starting with 2008. Something that has always confused me is the importance of the gas cans. I know there was some mention that maybe Casey chased George away from the car that might allegedly have smelled; and that maybe there was the same kind of tape as was around the body on the cans. It all seems pretty speculative and I'm wondering if there's some importance it has that it bears mentioning one or more times in timeline?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I put a lot of research into 2008 which was missing a lot of important detail and at least ref'd most of 2009 and 2010, removed a few dubious items, added a few missing things, and tried to clean up some of the mostly verbatim source language to avoid defacto plagiarism. Still a work in progress. 2009 and 2010 both have just a small percentage of the info about release of documents and various motions on evidence, and not necessarily the most important or most complete overview, so I cut some details. More of these details probably can be cut, but I think we can leave further cuts til we see what 2011 looks like since that's where the documents/evidence actually presented at trial is discussed, including in the trial section, and the trial timeline is probably the most important. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Finishing up timeline after many distractions from nature and other brouhahas. Just to answer the question, Henkel brand duct tape was found at the crime scene and on the gas can (George said he put it there), though that was the only place it was found. CarolMooreDC 16:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Two issues with Discovery as ref

Just merged language from the same ref on same information at this diff writing: don't need redundant ref and info; note that because Discovery used so often, best to let people go to main page and let check date in question; see talk

• This is what ref looks like now: Discovery Channel Casey Anthony Timeline, Discovery Communications, see link to appropriately dated page. The link goes to a page linking to every page and dating them, like June 14-June30, 2008, etc. It seems logical to do this because so many refs are used. If people want each ref to link to a specific page, they should go through and do it throughout, IMHO.

• Additionally, I would note that because I made a timeline merging all info from several times lines and misc info from this and another article, I did notice that Discovery channel blog sometimes dated events differently than news sources. I think I caught all of those I noticed, but there may be others - now or in the future - that are incorrect also. Additionally, noting that the blog author is rather subjective and even talks about writing a book or being a witness or something (I forget which), he probably is NOT the best source of info on any sensitive issue. And if he is the only source it's probably not good to use him. I may not have cleared up all such issues in my first pass. (And trying to clear those up as work on 2011 which is huge and have to finish doing refs, put it on my talk page as a reference or something, and then pare down substantially.)

Any thoughts? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

it's clearer and more elaborated this way....and the beginning is easier reading this way... The way you want it just doesn't catch the eye nicely in the opening sentence. The way I have it, though, it does. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't notice the redundancy?

June 16, 2008 — 2 1/2-year-old Caylee Anthony is last seen alive leaving the home of her grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony, along with her mother Casey. Grandfather George Anthony says he last sees Caylee Anthony leaving his home with her mother Casey.

? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

whether it's so "reduntant" or not, the opening sentence should not be so boring or hard reading. The way the opening was before your change, it was better to the eyes and understanding, and much clearer. The opening (especially for that particular date event) is important, and should be understood immediately. We want outside readers to get the CLEAR and QUICK reading and understanding regarding June 16 2008, that that was the last she was seen alive, etc. Right off the bat. Without having to mill through boring or difficult wordings. Just being honest. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the way it currently reads:

June 16, 2008 — 2 1/2-year-old Caylee Anthony is last seen alive leaving the home of her grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony, along with her mother Casey. Grandfather George Anthony says he last sees Caylee Anthony leaving his home with her mother Casey. Date the Casey Anthony defense states Caylee drowned in the Anthonys' pool. Between 3:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Casey makes numerous short calls to her parents and several friends.

We should find a balance between not being overly redundant, while also giving a quick and clear understanding. One thing I note right away is that we say "2 1/2 year old Caylee..." when two entries further up (June 9th), we again refer to "two and a half year old Caylee". How about something like this instead? (see below) AzureCitizen (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

June 16, 2008 — According to George Anthony, Caylee is last seen alive at the Anthony family residence, departing with Casey by car around 12:30 PM with backpacks on their shoulders. According to the defense, Caylee drowned in the family swimming pool. Between 3:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Casey makes numerous short calls to her parents and several friends.

Perfect! What do you think should be done about the reference since technically it is same reference just in two different formats. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I think we should go with the one that specifically points to the June 15-21 week directly here. AzureCitizen (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've noticed something else. I think it would clarify things further for the reader if the statement regarding the defense's contention was amended to add "and Casey and George covered it up," so that the conflicting positions between the two stories is clear (grandfather says daughter and granddaughter left the house by car, mother says her and grandfather covered it up, etc). Here is how I suggest we word that (below). AzureCitizen (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

June 16, 2008 — According to George Anthony, Caylee is last seen alive at the Anthony family residence, departing with Casey by car around 12:30 PM with backpacks on their shoulders. According to the defense, Caylee drowned in the family swimming pool and Casey and George covered it up. Between 3:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Casey makes numerous short calls to her parents and several friends.

That's fine in that gives both views. Put it in! We can leave the fuller ref there and then futuristically someone with a lot of time can fill in the rest of places Discovery (and it's many pages) ends up actually being used. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, because this other new way, again, simply still does NOT catch the eye and make it clear IMMEDIATELY that "2 1/2 year old Caylee was last seen alive" June 16. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Who knows really who saw her last? If she didn't drown, maybe she was last seen alive by other people - including Casey - two days later? And even if she did drown, did George or Casey or even Cindy see her alive last? Will we ever know? Because a statement sounds dramatic, or catches the eye, doesn't mean it is factual.

Also, maybe this would be a tad more accurate for second sentence: "According to the attorney defending Casey Anthony, Caylee drowned in the family swimming pool and Casey and George proceeded to cover it up." CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, in an effort to accommodate, how about this? (see below) -- AzureCitizen (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

June 16, 2008 — 2 1/2 year old Caylee is last seen alive at the Anthony family residence. According to George Anthony, Caylee departed with Casey by car around 12:30 PM with backpacks on their shoulders. According to the defense, Caylee drowned in the family's above-ground swimming pool and Casey and George Anthony panicked upon finding the body and covered up her death. Between 3:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Casey makes numerous short calls to her parents and several friends.

Hopefully, fills the bill! CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like we have a pretty good compromise, so I will insert it as a replacement for the June 16, 2008 entry. AzureCitizen (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. But now I notice something else about the "2 1/2 year old" descriptor which we're using for eye-catching effect... Caylee was much closer to being 3 instead of being 2 1/2. Perhaps we should adjust that to be either 1) "Approximately 3 year old..." or 2) "Almost 3 year old..."? Does anyone else have any ideas how to fix that? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually we should have the age in the lead which is most eye catching place. It mentions her birth date of August 9th, making it clear she was almost three. Of course, should birth date be moved to first sentence? Perhaps mention "almost three" in second? After that the age has been established and doesn't need to be mentioned again. Thus (in bold):

The Timeline of the Casey Anthony Case chronicles the events of the disappearance and death of Caylee Anthony (born August 9, 2005)[1], and the subsequent murder trial and acquittal of her mother, Casey Anthony (born March 19, 1986).[Need ref]

Almost three years old Caylee Marie Anthony was last seen with her mother on June 16, 2008 and was reported missing by her grandmother, Cindy Anthony, on July 15, 2008.[2]

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like that would probably be the best way to draw attention to her age if eye-catching effect is important here. I'll implement the edit. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Also, to match the June 16 entry, I changed the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the lede to "Almost three-year-old Caylee was last seen alive on June 16, 2008 at the Anthony family residence..." AzureCitizen (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Timeline title needs to conform to main article

While people do keep debating what the main article - Death of Caylee Anthony - should be called, "Casey Anthony case" is not one of the options. So at some point that issue will have to be dealt with. But I don't have a suggestion right now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the dust has settled and consensus on the main article was to go with the title "Death of Caylee Anthony". It made sense because the Casey Anthony murder trial was a subset of the topic of the disappearance and death of the little girl. Since that time, have you thought of any logical suggestions for what the timeline article should be named? Calling it "Timeline of the Death of Caylee Anthony" would seem pretty straightforward. Does anyone else have any suggestions? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

First, of course, there is the logical issue that the timeline in a death is pretty much the death. While I'm not too excited about current title, I do think most of the info herein (and more when finish the 2011 section) is and should be about the prosecution case and trial against Casey Anthony and relevant aftermath incidents. Having a slightly different title linked from the Death of Caylee article encourages more people to come here than would having almost exactly the same title as the main article. Those are my first thoughts, anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated timeline

• Yes, will start filling in Raw URLS and fixing any duplicates. Please call out quick if you find 2011 too detailed and we can discuss point by point what you want out :-)
• If I missed any important evidence that was presented at trial, feel free to put it in with WP:RS.
• I'm not going to list all the document dumps I took out - 10 plus - unless you really want them. Same with the judge's 2011 rulings on evidence which I removed. What was revealed at trial was of greater relevance.
• Below is what else I removed and why...

2008-2010 removed items

• ref name="grand_jury_indictment" - not sure what that is and might have gotten deleted; will check.
• October 17, 2009 — Testimony released from George Anthony's August 5 deposition to prosecutors reveals George kept changing his story and the timeline of events, especially important information about evidence. Interesting. Didn't find any reference to this in the trial but I might have missed it.
• November 20-21, 2009 — The defense alleges Roy Kronk may have killed Caylee. Defense interviews Roy Kronk's ex-wives, who revealed his history of violence toward women, including the use of duct tape. Interesting but the judge didn't let it in.
• August 6, 2010 — Judge denied defense motions to declare the death penalty unconstitutional. I couldn't figure out which judge; was it brought to higher court? Need to find out and put in?
• November 29, 2010 — Judge Belvin Perry denies a request made by prosecutors to order Casey Anthony's defense team to turn over information about their expert witnesses, telling prosecutors they ask witnesses or subpoena information. This is covered in first 2011 entry; need to duplicate?

2011 removed items

• May 9, 2011 — Jury selection begins in Clearwater for Casey Anthony’s murder trial. Really necessary? Refer to in next on selection completed.
• That's all I found right now. Mostly a lot of improvements to already existing entries.
• Do we still need four dates on the probation debate? How about one long one on August 23 with all necessary details included?

CarolMooreDC 15:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

CASEY BORROWED A SHOVEL -

At trial and on the E- True Hollywood Story it was stated that Casey Anthony borrowed her neighbor's shovel 2 days after Caylee went missing.I think its VERY important to add this to the timeline.12.180.111.254 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's in there "Neighbor testifies that in mid-June 2008 Casey and a boyfriend borrowed a shovel from him to dig up a bamboo root. [49]" Now if they buried a child, I think he would have gotten prosecuted too, not been a prosecution witness. CarolMooreDC 04:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary split infinitive

Per Wikipedia:Use modern language only in the clunkiest of cases should we split infinitives. I changed "Caylee's body was later found" to "Caylee's body later was found." This is something someone easily could say in speaking, so it's hardly a clunky one. Yet someone reverted back. I want to revert it back. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Stan Strickland is incorrectly linked

Stan Strickland directs to a Jazz musician instead of the Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spops (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Pro Suicide"

The website read "Venturing into the pro-suicide pit" but it meant this pejoratively, as if a pit of asps. It was against what it perceived to be a fringe 'pro suicide' movement. Cake (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

How would you phrase it instead? What about "Websites that discuss suicide"? Bali88 (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It should state exactly what the source used for it states, which is that it's an article that criticizes pro-suicide websites. And, MisterCake (Cake), that is exactly what I did with the text. The text that Bali88 added made it seem like the user was searching for ways to commit suicide, which lends weight to the defense team's argument about George's suicidal state. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I added more with this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer. I think the source for the previous text was this post, which has some "POV" bleed into his treatment. An irksome enough case without that. Cake (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the site, by the way. I must say the talk of "your stupid family" leaves you feeling Dr. G. missed the boat in referring to the plastic bag only as an aside. Cake (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Timeline of the Casey Anthony case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110728093729/http://investigation.discovery.com:80/blogs/criminal-report/casey_anthony_full_coverage/timeline/caylee_anthony_timeline.html to http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/casey_anthony_full_coverage/timeline/caylee_anthony_timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090117153131/http://blogs.discovery.com:80/criminal_report/files/casey_anthony_attorney_letter_to_sheriff.pdf to http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/casey_anthony_attorney_letter_to_sheriff.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110909004731/http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/march/219927/ to http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/march/219927/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120330161250/http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/grand_jury_indictment.pdf to http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/grand_jury_indictment.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120330161250/http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/grand_jury_indictment.pdf to http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/grand_jury_indictment.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110903063709/http://blogs.discovery.com:80/criminal_report/2011/05/casey-anthony-trial-day-4-the-courting-of-george-anthony.html to http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2011/05/casey-anthony-trial-day-4-the-courting-of-george-anthony.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110814132210/http://www.news-journalonline.com:80/breakingnews/2011/06/novel-forensics-tool-used-in-casey-anthony-trial.html to http://www.news-journalonline.com/breakingnews/2011/06/novel-forensics-tool-used-in-casey-anthony-trial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A TERRIBLE ARTICLE

Please can somebody suggest this article for deletion. 48Pills (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)