Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

Add the video ?

I'm hoping someone who does Wikipedia regularly may know where and if this should be added to the article. It is the raw news video of the home on fire and is the only video from the night of the fire. There has been scrutiny over details of the case, and in various forums, people have referenced the video to point things out.

http://www.sandiegonewsvideo.com/archive/20130804C-hannah-anderson-amber-alert-manhunt-house-fire-homicide-scene-video-boulevard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.84.144 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Page Move

The following discussion 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.

---

Since no one else seems to have been as concerned about the distinction between kidnapping and abduction as I was, and no consensus was reached or seems probable on this proposal, I am closing this discussion. Dwpaul (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC))

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson → Abduction of Hannah Anderson –

I added a link from abducted to the WP article on Kidnapping. From there, it is a short hop to the article Child abduction, which is defined here as "the unauthorized removal of a minor (a child under the age of legal adulthood) from the custody of the child's natural parents or legally appointed guardians." I don't think that anyone disputes that that occurred in this case, so that should settle the question (for our purposes) of whether a crime actually occurred -- whether or not Ms. Anderson accompanied her abductor voluntarily or even participated in other crimes believed committed by her abductor. However, it does raise the question of whether this article might be more correctly titled Abduction of Hannah Anderson. There does seem to be a legal distinction between kidnapping and child abduction (but I am not a lawyer).

The titles of 13 of the current citations here include variants of the word "kidnap," while only five include variants of "abduct." There isn't any question that media have used the term, presumably in its popular sense, but I suggest that we have a responsibility to describe the event more accurately than they do.

Whether or not the distinction is enough to warrant a page move, I propose to change the terms used in headings and the infobox from kidnap* to abduct* -- our narrative actually uses the (correct?) term, except in reference to the suspect's father's crime -- and to change my recently added link to point to Child abduction rather than Kidnapping. Dwpaul (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And have done (WP:BRD). Dwpaul (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

We use common names on Wikipedia. There is a section of rules about naming an article somewhere that says that. The legal term is kidnapping in the area it happened at. Word the media uses. Other Wikipedia articles about this sort of thing use the word "kidnapping". Dream Focus 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And in those other cases, kidnapping may indeed be what happened (by both the popular and legal definitions). Without resources to look into the laws of every US state between California and Idaho, I propose we at least follow the definitions of kidnapping and child abduction supplied here on WP. (Do you have a citation that provides a different definition under California law?) By those definitions, this was unquestionably a child abduction. Indications are it was also (legally speaking) a kidnapping, but that's what all the speculation is about. Why not consistently use the term least open to challenge? (P.S. - There is nothing uncommon about the term abduction. Dwpaul (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Here[1] is the California Penal Code (Section 207-210) definition of kidnapping. It requires force, fraud, or misrepresentation, without free will and consent on the part of the person taken, for the charge to be kidnapping. To abduct on the other hand means to "take, entice away, keep, withhold, or conceal" a child with the intent to detain or conceal that child from a lawful custodian, per Sec. 277 (whether or not the child is willing)[2]. Given that neither DiMaggio's guilt nor Anderson's state of mind will likely ever be formally examined in a court of law, which do you think is the safer term to use to describe the crime? Dwpaul (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

fraud, or misrepresentation, without free will and consent on the part of the person taken. The kidnapped child could not consent to having her family members murdered and then going with the guy. Please don't slander her by indicating she was somehow involved in this. Dream Focus 00:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not slandering anyone (here we go again). We are not discussing the murders, which were a separate act and a separate crime. The child could indeed consent, or not, to go with her abductor (it actually happens frequently). The point of using abduction is that it wouldn't matter if she had consented, her removal would still be a crime. I'm trying to make this article less of magnet for those who would like to use it to question Miss Anderson's account or her state of mind, versus accurately relating the facts of the crimes committed against her and her family. Given your previous comments, I'd think you'd be the first to agree. Dwpaul (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely sure I'm seeing the point here, but if an abduction has the intent of concealing or detaining a minor from her lawful custodian, it wouldn't make sense. Anderson has said on ask.fm that DiMaggio's intent in taking her was to "basically use [her] to carry his shit to the river". Her lawful custodian (Christina Anderson) was dead, so there was nobody from whom to conceal or detain Hannah. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; you're not seeing my point. But I've stated it 5 different ways and as completely as I can, so I rest. 15:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwpaul (talk • contribs)

No need to get snippy on everyone that disagrees with you. So far no one has agreed with your position, and I doubt anyone will. That should tell you something hopefully. The crime is called kidnapping. If you have an article about someone's murder, with murder in the title, you don't have to use the word murder every time, you can use the word "killed". That doesn't mean we'd change the title of the article to have Killer in it instead of Murderer. Dream Focus 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't feel "snipped". I know how annoying it is when you can't get an idea through to someone, and I think Dwpaul was pretty polite about it. I can't disagree with what I don't understand, so I'm not. Regardless, I have a new point on the intent part. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dream Focus, please don't accuse everyone with whom you disagree of being "snippy." I wasn't; I was simply explaining that I had nothing further to help alleviate the lack of understanding, so I wasn't going to argue further just for argument's sake. I'm only responding now because you've mentioned something that may indeed help. The guidelines you mentioned about common names are found at WP:COMMONNAMES, and include guidance that weighs both ways on this question. But see this specifically: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Also: "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: ... 2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." To (very) briefly address your other point, when there is some debate about about whether a death was caused by accident, homicide or suicide, you don't call it a "murder," because that is not WP:NPOV. You call it a "death," because that is the most basic fact of the matter and beyond debate. My logic is similar. Dwpaul (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk: Miss Anderson, a minor, was removed from the custody of her legal guardian. The fact that a crowbar may have been used as a tool to do so, and violently, doesn't change the fact of her abduction. When Anderson's custodial guardian was deceased, another (presumably Brent, still Tina's husband and Hannah's father) would have naturally and automatically assumed that role (absent that, the state would have done so), but her whereabouts were concealed by her removal to a different state. Dwpaul (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't considered whether guardianship passes automatically, or only once some paperwork is filled out. If it's automatic, I suppose it could be called abduction, if his intent was to conceal her, rather than have her help him get his stuff through the bush. Any indication of his long-term plans? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, says in your link, "In the absence of a court order to the contrary, a parent loses his or her right to custody of the child to the other parent if the parent having the right to custody is dead." So just the intent thing we have to figure out. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't think his exact intentions matter. I'd guess that qualification is there only to avoid the occasional misunderstanding about which parent has custody when, or a weekend with Dad going overtime, rising to the level of criminal abduction. DiMaggio didn't just take her to the ice cream store; he took her to Idaho. And it's pretty obvious he had no intention of returning her to the care of her lawful custodians (certainly not to Tina). So whether he wanted to use Hannah as a pack horse or to start a family, he abducted her. There may or might have been other potential crimes (involuntary servitude, rape, etc.) tied up in his intent, but not this one. The hierarchy is (I think): Interference with custody -> Abduction -> Kidnapping. His acts exceeded interference but the elements needed to prove kidnapping (edit: force, intimidation, etc.) remain unproven (edit: legally speaking) and open to speculation (and are likely to remain so), whatever we might believe. Hence my suggestion to use the term least subject to challenge and speculation. Dwpaul (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion of mens rea (intent with which a defendant acted when committing his criminal act) versus motive (the reason for committing the act) and that motive is not an element of the crime (but intent to commit it is).[3]. Dwpaul (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Book mention?

I've been keeping an eye out for any new developments to add to the page. Other than the revelation that DiMaggio had drugs in his system, I notice that there's a book coming out. Coverage for this seems to be predominantly local, although the Daily Mail has given it some attention. (Not that I'd consider them a RS, mind you.) It releases next week so I'm going to wait a little longer to see if it gets more coverage, but it could be argued that it might merit a mention now. If it does get mentioned, I'd recommend just a one line statement in an "In the media" section. Supposedly there's going to be a documentary, so we'll soon have more to add there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline in the article makes no sense. In the lead section, it says that Anderson was abducted after cheerleading practice. But in the body of the article, it says that the family stayed overnight at DiMaggio's home and that is where the mother and son were killed. Did "the family" not contain Hannah and her father? Or was she abducted from the house after her mother and brother were killed? Seems like there is a sentence missing that could explain this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you review this article's sources, you will see that the article simply reflects the lack of a definitive timeline in the reporting on this case, and perhaps in the knowledge of authorities. The family (Christina, the children and the dog Cali -- the parents were separated, so father Brett was not present) stayed at DiMaggio's house in Boulevard overnight; Hannah was picked up by DiMaggio(We don't even know this for certain) someone from cheerleading practice an hour away in National City the next afternoon. It has never been reported precisely how Hannah got to Sweetwater High School in National City. The exact timeline of what happened in Boulevard will likely never be known, because except Hannah all of the known principals, including the suspected perpetrator, are dead. Hannah can only attest to what she saw or was told. She may know nothing of what happened from the time she left DiMaggio's house until she was picked up, and it may not be accurate since it may be based only on what DiMaggio told her -- if anything. There are many "missing sentences," but until they are reported by reliable sources based on the official investigation (and they may never be, since this case will never go to trial), they cannot be shared here. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I added slightly more information based on RS, mainly to explain the father's absence from the events in Boulevard. Still no source I can find that explains how and/or what time Hannah left Boulevard and ended up in National City at her cheerleading practice. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

WP:NOTFORUM. BencherliteTalk 19:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Congrats everyone- this talk page is the subject of an article at Wikipediocracy here: http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/14/how-wikipedia-screws-up-an-article-the-hannah-anderson-kidnapping/ Staecker (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Of course the writer failed to report that 7 of 9 editors who !voted in that discussion were opposed to the inclusion of Cali as a casualty, and that the inclusion was ultimately removed. And that the use of "alleged" with respect to the kidnapping and murder was likewise rejected by all but a few editors, though retained (or replaced with "suspected") for the exposition of assumed facts which cannot and will never be proven. All in all, a very selective and distorted presentation concerning the discussions that occurred here. And why on earth is the writer rehashing this now, more than a year after those discussions ended? Somebody needs to find a real job. Dwpaul Talk 17:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC) I don't think most people take anything on that site seriously. Just one random bitter person or another posting nonsense. Dream Focus 18:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Nice, I won an Emmy! I have to thank dogs. Couldn't have done it without them. Seriously though, at least Wikipedia gets its articles in on time. This one's been an idea on a forum post there (nearly) forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)