Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AzureCitizen (talk | contribs) at 15:20, 10 December 2022 (→‎Requested move 3 December 2022: Missed this yesterday, added a quick note.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Dates?

What does this date mean? Was Cayley 2 when she died, or 3? “ Caylee Marie Anthony (August 9, 2005 – June-December 2008) ” 2601:343:C202:4430:9591:3D95:F36F:B23D (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Age not correct

The skeletal remains found were of THREE year old Caylee, not TWO 66.11.103.46 (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a lot about the case, but I think the point being made is that she never turned three. Even according to the theory offered by the defense, she died while she was still two, and it just took a long time to find her bones. The opening sentence suggests that she may have died as late as December 2008, but it's not clear to me whether someone has actually contended that she died within ten days of her bones being located. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The math really shouldn't be this hard to deduce. Caylee was born August 9, 2005. She was reported to be missing on July 15, 2008 and had last been seen by her grandmother 31 days prior. Follow along: She was one year old on August 9, 2006. She was two years old on August 9, 2007. She would have been three years old on August 9, 2008. Her remains were found on December 11, 2008, but based on the date of disappearance and the state of the remains, it is unlikely she was alive that long. Forensically it could not be determined exactly when she died, so they have to give a window during which she may have died, but the greatest likelihood is that she died before her third birthday, based upon the reported missing date of July 15, 2008. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations supported by “unfounded” & “broken” links. Not a good look for Wikipedia.

Page is full of faulty statements in which are supported by broken links that cannot be edited out. Please discard the allegations with broken links. 74.97.27.39 (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather long article with more than 200 citations. Please be more specific, and perhaps we can assist. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Valid and equally strong points have been raised by all sides of the discussion, and I don't see a consensus to arrive at a conclusive title. While a typical no consensus closure would see that the article remain at the current title, "Killing of", however as noted by Amakuru in the discussion, the article was moved to "Killing of" title in May 2022 undiscussed, and per

WP:NOCON, the title should be moved back to the most recent prior stable title, "Death of". (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Killing of Caylee Anthony → Death of Caylee Anthony – This article was retitled to "killing of" over "death of" earlier this year. WP:"Murder_of"_articles indicates this isn't correct. In fact it uses the Caylee Anthony case as its example for when "killing of" should not be used, quote: "In the death of Caylee Anthony, the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as 'murder' under Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise such a case should also not be labeled as 'killing'." Shiningbell (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support. The current title is
    WP:BIASed especially since it was a “not guilty” verdict. Shwcz (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per
    WP:DEATHS. "Orange and Osceola County chief medical examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia testified that she determined the toddler's manner of death to be homicide"[1] 162 etc. (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support. Our article notes '...the cause of death was listed as "death by undetermined means."' What happened is disputed and we should let our readers come to their own conclusions. A biased title reduces the article's credibility.--agr (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose OP was doing fine up to the last line. Murder and homicide ("a killing") are two entirely separate things. The outcome of the trial is irrelevant to the medical examiner's determination. The determination was homicide. The 'means' are irrelevant. That nobody was convicted does not change its nature as a homicide. Editorial: She was two years old. So, it's extremely unlikely she committed suicide. Her remains were found in a laundry bag. It's highly unlikely a two year old would get lost/run away from home, then crawl into a laundry bag and therein die. It is possible, but not probable. The final legal determination by the medical examiner was homicide. It is the Killing of Caylee Anthony. And to put a finer point on it, from the WP:"Murder of"_articles page: If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated, the article still can't be titled "Murder of [victim]", but it should also not be titled "Death of [victim]", as this would be imprecise. Instead, the article should be titled "Killing of [victim]". On that basis alone the proposal fails, while acknowledging the 'murder of' article is an essay, not a policy. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The section you quoted doesn't support your point. "If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated" The "killing of" title would have been appropriate only before the end of the trial. Shiningbell (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The reason "yet" is in parenthesis is that it can be read as "but a murder has not been adjudicated" or "but a murder has not yet been adjudicated". In this case, a murder has not yet been adjudicated. It remains a homicide. That a person wasn't found guilty doesn't preclude a different person from being tried, nor does it change the evidence that led the medical examiner to declare it a homicide. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point there. But if you follow through with that logic, if we aren't implying Casey's a murderer with the title, aren't we necessarily implying Caylee was killed by some unknown killer? Which means endorsing a theory shared by almost no one - not the state, not the defense, not the judge or jury (they both point to the accidental drowning theory as the most likely 2nd option in later interviews) and not the media. Shiningbell (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP should never imply or infer anything - we simply provide the information found in the sources (I know - that's a big 'duh'!). But we also can't synthesize anything beyond the fact that the coroner ruled it a homicide. Nobody has been convicted of her murder. It's worth pointing out, as with many unsolved killings, evidence uncovered later - even decades - can be sufficient to bring charges anew. Who killed her - based upon the not guilty verdict - is not known. That it was a killing is known, and it was the "official" determination, and is rather obvious from the evidence in the case. It's a tough one. All sorts of things have been and could be speculated. But we can't engage in that speculation, not specifically (the best that can be done is for example, 'perhaps a boyfriend of "someone" killed Caylee on behalf of that "someone"'). So, absent evidence other than that it was a homicide, absent a conviction - yet - it remains a homicide by an unknown person by an unknown means. As I said, it's tough one, particularly with so much circumstantial evidence surrounding it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what you're saying makes technical sense. But carry this through to its conclusion.
Say Derek Chauvin had been found not guilty, because the jury was convinced by the defense's argument that it was an innevitable overdose or heart attack. Would it be fair to still call that article "The Killing of George Floyd" (The coroner ruled it a homicide)?
That would be seen by any reader as a nakedly biased implication that George Floyd was murdered by police officers. The fact that the door is left open for Floyd being shot by an unkown assassin with a microscopic poison dart during the struggle does nothing to correct that.
There needs to be some concession to how real people will interpret the article beyond the purely technical. Shiningbell (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good points, indeed. As I said, a tough one, and one for which I just don't see a perfect path through. Honestly, I don't see why the title has to characterize it at all. simply
Caylee Anthony seems like it would suffice. But then it falls even farther out from any particular convention maintained here with these sorts of cases. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The prosecution claimed it was a homicide. The defense claimed it was an accidental drowning. The defense admitted there was an attempt to conceal details. That alone does not make it a killing. The jury did not accept the prosecution's argument. We should not attempt to judge the nature of the death, just present the full story and let our readers decide.--agr (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - One defendant being acquitted does not rule out that other defendants may be charged and convicted in the future.
Kire1975 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move was improperly closed

In the move discussion above just closed a few minutes ago,

Killing of Caylee Anthony. Kire1975 (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@Kire1975 the rationale is stated in my closing statement. Nothing is improper. – robertsky (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be both stable and imprecise. Kire1975 (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stability comes from the duration at which title the article was/is hosted at. – robertsky (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the article was at "Death of" title mostly right from the creation of the article (with exception of disruptive moves) until 30 May 2022 when an undiscussed move to "Killing of" title was made. The discussion above proved that the undiscussed move was controversial. – robertsky (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above proved... Where exactly? How? If true, let there be a discussion here.
Please also address the question about how a page title can be both stable and imprecise.
Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question of how the article should be titled pending the resolution of a discussion about its title is a separate issue from the closing of a discussion on the article title. I am addressing only the latter issue.

The discussion strikes me as having been closed at a point when further discussion could have been helpful, given that discussion had not continued for long and part of the rationale for closing discussion was that "Valid and equally strong points have been raised by all sides of the discussion". This seems like a context in which a

RfC might have been helpful. Arllaw (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 3 December 2022

Death of Caylee Anthony → Killing of Caylee Anthony – Per WP:"Murder_of"_articles#"Killing_of"_articles, If foul play has been officially determined, such as by a coroner who ruled homicide as a cause of death, but a murder has not (yet) been adjudicated...should also not be titled "Death of [victim]", as this would be imprecise. Instead, the article should be titled "Killing of [victim]". The medical examiner ruled it as a homicide according to reliable source. The previous move discussion was closed in error. A page with an imprecise title is not "stable." Kire1975 (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For additional support see
WP:DEATHS and especially this flowchart. Kire1975 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
When a Medical Examiner (ME) conducts an autopsy, they attempt to ascertain the cause of death (e.g., bludgeoned with a heavy object, stabbed with an edged weapon, strangled by a cord around the neck, run over by moving vehicle, fatally shot, etc.), followed by pronouncing the manner of death (homicide, suicide, accident, natural, etc.) In the overwhelming majority of cases, they are able to determine the cause of death, and when that cause must follow from a human actor (such as a bludgeoning, stabbing, strangling, etc.), it is highly reliable and nearly indisputable when they say the manner of death was homicide. Unfortunately, in Caylee Anthony’s case, the ME was unable to determine a cause of death. Because her remains were found in a location that would have been impossible for her to have gotten to on her own volition (deceased inside a bag in a forested area, along with the presence of duct tape on or near the mouth), the ME reasonably concluded that a human being had to be involved in putting her body there, and because the child was not reported as missing, deception and foul play were likely to be involved. Accordingly, the ME decided to declare the manner of death was homicide so that the authorities could move forward despite being utterly unable to ascertain a cause of death. It’s very reasonable to suspect foul play (and homicide) in such a scenario for the purposes of the criminal justice system. However, it’s problematic for us to adopt the same approach in titling this article on Wikipedia. If we retitle from “Death of…” to “Killing of…”, we are then stating definitively in Wikivoice that this was a killing, when there was no proof presented at trial that it was. The actual facts of this situation are subtly but importantly nuanced, and when the ME can't determine the cause of death there is too much of a margin for error (looks like the jury saw it that way too). As a result, for this article and this particular set of facts, using a “Death of…” title is the most precise it can be for now. Maybe some day that will change. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was proof presented at trial that whoever killed her wrapped her up in a plastic bag until she was too skeletalized to determine the cause of death. The medical examiner certified it as a homicide. "Cause of death: Homicide..." appears at the bottom of the first page of the autopsy. That is all that is required according to
WP:MURDEROF. Kire1975 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The bottom of the first page says "Cause of Death: Homicide by undetermined means", which means they ME could not determine how she died. The bottom of the second page and the rest of the third page make it clear that this is the best "Conclusion/Opinion" of the ME, as the exact cause of death could not be determined. Some quotes from the ME's conclusion/opinion from pages 2 and 3: "...the exact cause of death cannot be determined with certainty. The manner of death is an opinion based on available information...". In concludes with "It is, thus, my opinion that, although the cause of death cannot be determined with certainty, the manner of death is homicide." As I said above, the ME was unable to determine a cause of death and at best arrived at the opinion that the manner of death was homicide because the child's body could not have gotten to it's resting location without a human being (or beings) putting it there. That said, the proof presented at trial only proved that whoever put her there, put her there. There was no evidence presented at trial that proved someone killed her and then put her. Was she killed? Entirely possible. But it's also possible that she died and then was put there to hide her death as opposed to covering up a killing.
On a separate note, you've said that the ME's determination is all that is required according to
WP:DEATHOF, but in the preceding paragraph to your excerpt in green above, it says "If the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as "murder" under Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise such a case should also not be labeled as "killing". If a new prime suspect emerges, this does not apply." So it can't be said that is all that is required; on the contrary, the essay you've cited is saying that under the circumstances of this case, it should not be titled "Killing of...", because the prime suspect was found not guilty by a jury that adjudicated the ME's conclusions along with all the other evidence presented by the prosecution. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion about the page being moved was just recently closed. Shouldn't there be a bit of breathing room for this? Auror Andrachome (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the facts in this case, perhaps you can explain how we can definitively arrive at the conclusion that it's impossible that Caylee's death was either natural or non-violent? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My "support" vote for
Killing of Caylee Anthony is based upon the green text, as highlighted in the nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
In the green text highlighted above, it says "by a coroner who ruled homicide as the cause of death." In this case, the coroner was unable to make a ruling on the cause of death. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to myself, six other editors at the November 24 vote were likewise convinced that circumstances surrounding the child's demise indicated that
Killing of Caylee Anthony is the more-intuitive main header. Five other editors were not convinced. Since the November 24 votes were ultimately voided via the technicality of reverting an undiscussed move, this go-round gives editors another opportunity. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The cause of death was determined to be homicide by unknown means. The difficulty in finding a specific cause of death related to the condition of the body when it was located, but there was sufficient evidence to nonetheless determine the cause to be by homicide. Arllaw (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Homicide by unknown means" still means the cause of death was unknown, so I don't think we can say there was sufficient evidence to conclude her death definitively had to be a homicide (the jury didn't think so, nor was any proof presented at trial that it had to have been a homicide). However, looking more closely just now at the quoted (green) material from the nominator, I noticed there is another fundamental misunderstanding here. The quoted essay (
WP:MURDEROF as the guide here), the article should therefore neither be labeled "Murder of..." nor "killing of...", unless a new suspect gets indicted. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not interested in debating the facts of Caylee Anthony's death. I am going to state that your opinion as an editor, while valuable, is not a reliable source and does not substitute for reliable sourcing. It is also not correct to say that Casey Anthony's acquittal means that no homicide occurred -- just that Anthony's guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The acquittal of a defendant who denies responsibility for a homicide does not mean that no homicide occurred, and does not rule out the possibility that the homicide was committed by another person.
The quote you provide mistakenly suggests that there is a Wikipedia guideline that mandates a specific outcome, as there is no such guideline. It is also inconsistent with the article and flowchart that it claims to be summarizing. Essays that are provided as guidance can be helpful, but they can also be misleading and they are not policy. Arllaw (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a wrongfully accused defendant is rightfully acquitted, how is the coroner's determination that a homicide was committed not still valid? Whoever wrapped her up in bags and skeletonized her still committed homicide. Kire1975 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do we that whoever wrapped her up in bags killed her? What if she died, and then someone wrapped her up in order to hide the death (but hadn't killed her)? As discussed further up above, at best the ME was able to issue their opinion that the manner of death was homicide based on the highly suspicious circumstances, but unable to ascertain the cause of death, hence no certainty here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should work from a
neutral point of view. An editor has the right to disagree with reliably sourced information, or speculation about alternative scenarios to those that are reliably sourced, but those thoughts do not belong in a Wikipedia article. Arllaw (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't an NPOV situation, nor am I speculating original ideas here that weren't discussed in the reliable secondary sources. It was the defense that argued at trial that Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool and in a panic the body was moved and hidden to cover up her death. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a new suspect need to be indicted to be considered to have emerged? Kire1975 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indictment would mean the new suspect would have to be tried in a court of law just as Anthony was, but I'll dial that back a bit and just say that at a minimum, we at least need law enforcement to designate a "new prime suspect" (using the term from
WP:DEATHOF). Have the authorities named a new suspect in Caylee Anthony's case? Or would you argue that someone can be a "new prime suspect" even though no law enforcement agency has designated them as such? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It is unnecessary for there to be an identified suspect (new or old) to be identified or charged, or in fact for there to be any suspect at all, for a homicide to be labeled (as appropriate) a murder or a killing. See, e.g., Murder of Tupac Shakur, Murder of the Notorious B.I.G.. Arllaw (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those murders included suspects who were identified by law enforcement (as opposed to no suspects at all). But given the facts of those particular cases (witnesses saw assailants openly gun them down in the street; indisputably beyond any reasonable doubt that these were homicides; even the preponderance of reliable secondary sources called their deaths "murders"), that makes sense and I doubt the Wikipedia community has any problem with keeping those titles in place given the circumstances. It's different in this case with no other suspects identified by law enforcement plus reasonable doubt after the ME was unable to determine the cause of death. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&oldid=1126662285"