Jump to content

Talk:Death of Martin Anderson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Martin Anderson case)

References

[edit]

Some of the online articles are disappearing already. This is especially true of the newspaper articles, which may stay up for only a week or so. Is there any remedy for this?Fconaway 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances

[edit]

liks are being added which are contreversial and one side. these should not be added. they need be true media from ie news sites or of facts. if this is the case lets talk and put why he was visiting the boot camp. this is fact and can be referenced..... thqank you I removed the statement that the death was linked to "sickle cell anemia" since this is not correct; it is linked to sickle cell trait. I also added the other disputed diagnoses. Billollib 14:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siebert

[edit]

Well, what's Siebert's first name? it say's Siebert was a medical examiner, but what was his first name? Stevo D 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We beat american citizens in prison, but we don't beat terroists in prison, who deserve it. Whats with that? The Republican 02:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished that you'd even ask. It's inappropriate to beat anyone in prison. And your statement implies that it's societally acceptable to beat citizens - it most certainly is not. So your statement is, quite simply, fallacious - in multiple ways. What's with that? -Etoile 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just more fun for them to beat children who are too small to fight back?

Do you think your boy George will get beaten when he goes to prison in 2009?

Reinserted forensic pathology findings regarding Dr. Baden's and Dr. Adams' findings, and the National Association response. 66.184.148.234 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, reinserted the concerns of the forensic pathology community. The bottom line is that this is a real concern by our community, and editing it out is a disservice to people who want more than simple propaganda. But hey, I'll be back. Billollib 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, reinserted the concerns of the forensic pathology community, with references. There is no reference for the statment that something has not been demonstrated because it is a negative. Billollib 16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and, once again, if you want a more exhaustive discussion of the pathophysiology, see "www.billoblog.com/billoblog/?p=271" Billollib

We need a reference for the statement that it has not been demonstrated, even though it's a negative. Otherwise it's not verifiable. Perhaps a quote from a news article with some pathologist saying that it hasn't been demonstrated. Pfalstad 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I could quote myself, or any of my colleagues :-). Should I just do "personal communication?" You won't have anybody really commenting about that in the press until Dr. Adams' autopsy report is released to the public, which may never happen. But, in the general sense, your edits are good, and it may not be worth the trouble to change it more. Billollib 15:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, has to be verifiable.. WP:V specifically mentions blogs as being unacceptable sources, too. Pfalstad 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense.Billollib 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask, however, why this applies to my paragraph, but not to any other in this section -- I note that none of the previous discussion of Dr. Siebert seemed to require such a bibliography. Billollib 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it wasn't controversial, and it seemed to match what I'd read elsewhere. Your changes caught my eye because of the POV language and because I hadn't seen any of those claims in news reports. Anyway, I added some refs and corrected some errors in the rest of the paragraph. If there's anything else that seems unverifiable, feel free to remove it if you can't find any sources to back it up. Pfalstad 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the title -- Siebert was never "suspended." Billollib 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the statement that Dr. Siebert was placed on probation by the MEC to the fact that the MEC recommended probation. This is important in light of the resolution of the case. Billollib 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run-on sentence, "black and detention advocacy groups"

[edit]
In his letter, Meadows admitted "close ties" to Bush appointed Hillsborough County State Attorney Mark Ober to oversee the case, which remains open and under his supervision.

This is a direct quote from the article. It appears that a word (probably a proper name) is missing between "to" and "Bush", to be followed by a full-stop with "Bush" being the first word in a new sentence. Can anyone fill in?

My interpretation is that this is correct, except for punctuation: "close ties" to Bush-appointed Hillsborough County State Attorney reads fine. Is it factually correct?
Rbraunwa 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meadows admitted close ties to Tunnell, which is why he begged off. I have fixed. 65.244.99.5 20:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the major figures in the Anderson investigation have been criticized by Anderson's family, black and detention advocacy groups, and the media.

Here's another quote from the article. Can anyone tell me what "black and detention advocacy groups" are? Wouldn't it be better to rephrase this? --Smithfarm 08:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment deleted (I put it in the wrong place) Billollib 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Conspiracy

[edit]

Removed POV and story of a case that is not related to Martin Anderson. Billollib 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC) there are alot of facts being left out and reasons why he was there in the first place. some of you so called editors want the to be a controversy, and put your own info down with out any references or just your thoughts in the artcle. if this continues to happen the whole article should be deleted and never talked aboput again. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic?

[edit]

This is clearly encyclopedia content. I came to this article by searching Wikipedia for Martin Anderson, and the content appeared just as I expected. I'm sure I'm not the only one looking for information on this case in Wikipedia.

--Rbraunwa 09:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Fconaway 21:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Unencyclopedic" Template

[edit]

I'm just stating that I'm removing the template. This seems to be very worthy to be here. Just saying that I'm removing it. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV

[edit]

"As one member of the Medical Examiner Commission noted, "Michael Baden saying it does not harm you - considering the literature, he may as well have walked out and said the world is flat." [11]" This isn't a very neutral statement 65.24.151.151 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The (unidentified) MEC member's statement seems to have been a sound bite intended to confuse the public, by equating a sickle cell trait with a sickle cell disease, as though they were the same.

In fact, the MEC member is identified in the article as Jon Thogmartin. It's not just a sound bite. This is a problem with the documentation requirements of Wikipedia. One could, in fact, write a dissertation about sickle cell trait and sudden death in boot camps -- it's a major problem. The fact is that Dr. Baden's statements are factually wrong. One has the choice of either allowing Baden's statements to be unopposed -- and in doing so introduce a profound bias in favor of Dr. Baden -- or allow *both* sides of the story. I don't see how documenting both sides of the debate constitues lack of neutrality while allowing one side to be unopposed constitutes "neutral." Jon explicitly does not conflate sickle cell trait and sickle cell disease. In fact, he has published articles on the subject (which Dr. Baden has not). The fact is that sickle cell trait is a risk factor in the boot camp environment with an increased risk of death of 4000 percent. Declining to allow that side of the story introduces bias; it does not get rid of it. Billollib 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Dr. Thogmartin's name, but, his statement as reported in the St. Petersburg Times has an undefined "it" -- the ambiguity could refer to a genetic trait or to a sickle cell crisis. As it stands, it confuses the lay public. Ultimately we need to know whether abuse killed Anderson.
We do see both sides of the story documented here, at some length, and Dr. Baden's statements are not unopposed. Dr. Baden can be wrong, certainly (^.^) -- can't we all? If he's wrong, Dr. Adams and Dr. Baden both would have had to misread the data, wouldn't they?Fconaway 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, the newspaper articles that discuss this, including the one sited, and go on at great length about the difference between SCD and SCT. There is no ambiguity. However, I've added an editorial qualifier to disambiguate it. The sad thing is that Jon is right -- and in fact, Baden has made the diagnosis of death based on sickle cell trait himself. The diagnosis of SCT-related exertional death has been made in virtually all major jurisdictions. I understand that you don't know the subject, but Baden's statement is frankly outrageous. As far as "Ultimately we need to know whether abuse killed Anderson," you start that by getting the diagnosis of the cause of death right. Further, the statements about Siebert's negligence hinge on whether or not his COD is correct. You can't finesse it and say that it doesn't really matter whether or not he's correct as long as you get to prosecute a guard. You don't decide on what you want to charge someone with and then make up a diagnosis to fit. In fact, all three diagnoses provided here are caused by "abuse" as defined in the arrest complaint. Ultimately, Dr. Siebert will be proven correct -- the majority of the forensic pathology community support his diagnosis, which is why NAME came out in support of him.
As far as "Dr. Adams and Dr. Baden both would have had to misread the data," you do realize, don't you, that Dr. Adams and Dr Baden provided *different* diagnoses? They both can't be right. Baden did not provide a real report that he would have to defend, but merely opined to the press. Dr. Adam's report is still being held secret -- primarily because it is ultimately indefensible. The diagnosis of laryngospasm as a cause of death is not universally accepted (it has never actually been demonstrated outside of contrived animal experiments using acid and such, and a human death due to non-anesthetic laryngospasm has never been demonstrated). Further, never in recorded history have ammonia inhalers been demonstrated to cause laryngospasm. In contrast, other than Baden, I know of no forensic pathologist who does not accept exertional SCT as a COD -- and as I noted, Baden himself did so in the past. If Siebert's diagnosis is correct, the guards are better indicted on the charge of negligence. If Adam's diagnosis is correct, the better indictment is assault. There's a reason they were indicted on the charge of negligence, and why the indictment does not endorse or rely on Adams' cause of death.
Mmmmm. The charge seems to be felony aggravated manslaughter of a child. [1] Stephen D. Price, Tallahassee Democrat January 19, 2007.Fconaway 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Both assault and negligence are covered under that. The indictment actually reads that the defendants "did cause the death of Martin Lee Anderson by culpable negligence, without lawful justification of excuse, by neglecting Martin Lee Anderson by failure or omission to provide Martin Lee Anderson with the care, supervision or services necessary to maintain his physical or mental health that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of a child..." He's charging them with negligence, not with beating or smothering the child.Billollib 02
02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's because, when all is said and done, Siebert will be proven correct. The full medical evaluation is too long to go into here; I suggest you look at my discussion at http://www.billoblog.com/billoblog/?p=271. The only option folk who want to take Siebert down have is to delay releasing Adams' report for evaluation by the community. Baden's statements, and frankly, his diagnosis, are unsupportable -- they are made for the purpose of the civil tatesuit, but are irrelevant to the prosecution of any crime.

Both sides need to be provided. Your position is that it's "neutral" to provide accusations of Siebert's negligence and not evidence of the outrageousness of Baden's statments, but unfair to note that the forensic patholgy community in general believes the opposite. If you want to delete criticism of Baden, then delete the criticism of Siebert. It's not "neutral" to have only one. Billollib 03:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my position. As you say, both sides do need to be provided. We shouldn't delete any pertinent fact which can be verified.Fconaway 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Baden said Anderson had sickle cell trait but not sickle cell disease. He said the abuse of the teenager killed him by causing asphyxiation, as Dr. Adams also found. Although hypoxia could have induced a sickle cell crisis, "hospital records indicate Anderson's blood was not sickled until the moment at which he started to die."[1]

Dr. Baden diagnosed mechanical asphyxiation. Dr. Adams' diagnosed laryngospasm. They are different.
Unless I misread Dr. Adams' statement, he found the cause of death to be suffocation:

Martin Anderson’s death was caused by suffocation due to actions of the guards at the boot camp. The suffocation was caused by manual occlusion of the mouth, in concert with forced inhalation of ammonia fumes that caused spasm of the vocal cords resulting in internal blockage of the upper airway.

Fconaway 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's laryngospasm. And it's not what Baden diagnosed -- mechanical asphyxia. They are different things.Billollib 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be useful to review these terms as used by forensic pathologists, because the newspapers misuse them all the time. Since these are terms of art, their use sometimes does not reflect common definitions or usage. This may be why we are talking across each other on this. "Asphyxia" is a general term for death due to impaired oxygen availability. This is the most general term, and some people even include respiratory poisons such as cyanide or carbon monoxide as forms of asphyxia (aka "chemical asphyxia"). There are many different kinds of asphyxia. "Strangulation" occurs when the trachea is compressed -- a noose, hands, whatever. "Ligature strangulation" is strangulation with a ligature such as rope, as in garotting or hanging. "Throttling" or "manual strangulation" is when the hands are used. "Mechanical asphyxia" occurs when the normal movement of the body associated with breathing is inhibited, as with a weight placed upon the chest (aka "Burking"). "Positional asphyxia" occurs when the body is placed in a position in which the air cannot pass, as with the head twisted too far forward (as happens with children and drunks). "Smothering" occurs when nose and mouth are covered, blocking inhalation. "Choking" occurs when something blocks the airway, but does not cover the mouth and nose, such as a piece of food in the airway. Thus, you "choke" on your food, but you are not "strangled" by it. "Drowning" is a specific form of choking (but not smothering) in which water blocks the airway. "Suffocation" occurs when one is deprived of oxygen; while it is sometimes use as a general term, it is more specifically used in cases where there is a lack of oxygen available -- for instance when people in an enclosed space use up all the oxygen in room, or when there's a mistake at the hospital and a patient is placed on nitrogen instead of oxygen (which has happened). Thus, while Baden and Adams both diagnosed types of asphyxia, the terms they used represented different mechanisms of death. Baden proposed primarily mechanical asphyxia due to the compression of the chest, claiming that the guards literally sat on the victim's chest. Adams made the claim primarily of laryngospasm, or choking. While both are asphyxia, they are due to different acts and have different mechanisms of death -- and the cannot both be right. Both tried to hedge their bets -- Baden implied some positional component, and Adams provided some smothering component, but they are still different, and cannot both be correct, any more than if one had said he'd been hanged and the other said he'd been poisoned with cyanide. Billollib 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Further, Baden has it completely backwards in his statement about the "hospital records." His position is that the sickling seen in the histology sections are artifact because blood samples at the hospital did not show as much sickling. However, there have been multiple studies that have shown the opposite effect -- exposure of blood to air in laboratory samples artifactually cause cells that are sickled in the body to oxygenate and regain normal shape. The reason is that most of the sickle cells in people with SCT are what are called "reversibly sickled." They sickle when they become deoxygenated, but regain normal shape when exposed to oxygen. Billollib 03:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I should add in explanation is that, in fact, in spite of Dr. Baden's statements, the sickling status of the cells is pretty irrelevant. These people may or may not show a lot of sickling as an agonal event. People with sickle cell trait who die of exertional rhabdomyolysis do not die of sickle crisis. The pathophysiology of these deaths is different than that associated with sickle cell disease. It's just one more thing he got wrong. Billollib 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article seems to be accurate and verifiable. There are different views in the article, of course. If there's an error of fact, that's to be demonstrated and reported.Fconaway 02:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there hasn't been any more discussion, I'm removing the NPOV flag Billollib 02:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rebecca Catalanello, "Doctor: Beating, not sickle cell trait, killed teen," St. Petersburg Times, March 16, 2006
[edit]

I went to the site where there claims to be a video of his beating. The video did not load. I looked at the source of the page which appears to be: http://www.afrostyly.com/media/video/martin_anderson.wmv However, this came up as a dead link in Wget. I believe this link should be removed. Bstone 04:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now look. Here it is: <http://www.afrostyly.com/afro/actualite/martin_anderson.htm> Looks like they moved it on their site!Fconaway 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alleged coverup, etc.

[edit]

This statement appeared without a supporting reference: "Jimmy has been accused of having affairs with other deputies wives regularly." This may be unverifiable; in any case it would seem to be irrelevant.Fconaway 07:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Bay County Case number in the reference.

[edit]

THe case number in the reference page is interesting. Under public records law, why don't you request it. It was written by a rookie deputy who did not know who Stanford was. Stanford was supposed to have been involved in a fight where a knife and baseball bat was being used. It is only suspected that he was suspect in this crime along with his brother. The case file indicates that he assigned it to himself and cleared the case "unfounded". This clearly and concisely indicates, if true, that he is willing to cover up information.

==2008 (UTC)

this article needs to be re-written. this is very biased and one sided. seems like there are only two people that are responsible for the. fconway and billibob. they wont let others allow other facts and more about this article. they seem to be abusing their power. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.44.28 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia--Verification Failed

[edit]

The reference cited in the "Controversy and criticism" section does not support the assertion: "ammonia spirits have been in wide use for over a century, a death due to the use of ammonia inhalant has never been demonstrated." --DieWeisseRose 04:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following unverified statement has been removed until verified: "Even though ammonia spirits have been in wide use for over a century, a death due to the use of ammonia inhalant has never been demonstrated[2] "Ammonia Spirit, Aromatic (Inhalation-Systemic)"][failed verification]. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.]

Even if verified, this statement about ammonia fumes does not contradict Dr. Adams' diagnosis of death by suffocation due to the actions of the guards.Fconaway 07:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly on two counts. First, in medicine, there is generally no such thing a list of things *not* associated with a disease. There is no medical textbook stating that magically turning into a unicorn is *not* a symptom of strep throat. However, it is perfectly valid to note that it has not been observed and to reference a text that shows that it is not on the list of verified symptoms. Similarly, the reference I gave provides a list of symptoms -- of which laryngospasm is not listed. The idea that one dare not say that people will not turn in to unicorns if they get strep throat is pretty silly, and it is just as silly to claim that you can't notice the same about laryngospasm. Further, on the date of this "correction," Dr. Adams himself noted this on cross examination. It is a bad criterion to state that one can use a *secondary* source (Dr. Adams testimony) as "verification" but not a *primary" source (the data that he, and I, use for that testimony).

Second, the statement about ammonia *does* contradict Dr. Adams' diagnosis. His diagnosis *is* asphyxiation due to laryngospasm due to the use of ammonia salts. If the proposed mechanism of asphyxiation by the guards is wrong, then the diagnosis of asphyxiation by the guards is wrong. Unless, of course, one wants to posit a unicorn standing on Anderson's chest. After all, nobody has said it *wasn't* there...

I'm putting it back in, and adding the admission by Adams as "verification."

Billollib 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are mis-construing what Dr. Adams said, judging from Dr. Adams' letter to Ober and the newspaper reports. For example, this seems clear enough:

Sinacore asked if Anderson would have died if the guards had not used the ammonia. Adams said yes, because they covered his mouth so long.

And no ammonia, no hands, the guards not touching him at all, what happens to your opinion then? Sinacore asked.

No opinion -- because he's not dead, Adams replied.Susannah A. Nesmith, "Guards suffocated teen, examiner says Tampa's medical examiner testified that Martin Lee Anderson died because boot camp guards deprived him of oxygen." Miami Herald (Oct. 06, 2007)

I'm not misconstruing what he wrote as his official opinion. There's a little inside baseball here. In contrast to what's been going on in the press, it's been Dr. Adams' and not Dr. Siebert's diagnosis that has caused consternation in the Medical Examiner community. What you are seeing is Dr. Adams making a progressive retreat from his written opinion. However, the original opinion as written is that the young man died of laryngospasm. The statement at trial that revises it to claim that he thinks the man would have died even if his diagnosis was wrong is a backpeddle, and will continue through Dr. Siebert's appeal. This is in contrast to one of the other prosecution experts (who did not testify) who simply changed his diagnosis altogether. Read the actual autopsy report. Oops forgot to sign. Billollib 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Speaking of unicorns, there was one -- which ate lilies The Unicorn in the Garden.Fconaway 04:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference cited in the "Controversy and criticism" section does not support the assertion: "ammonia spirits have been in wide use for over a century, a death due to the use of ammonia inhalant has never been demonstrated." The reference says nothing on these points, in fact. --DieWeisseRose 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Look under "Adverse Reactions." There a list. It's not there. However, I'll tell you what I'll do -- I'll add an MSDS sheet. It's not there, either. Once again, to demand an exhaustive list of all things that are not a side effect of something is silly. It has been in use for 150 years. It is not a known side effect. Figure it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billollib (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. If you want to rewrite the statement so that it is consistent with what the two references actually do say then, by all means, go ahead. In the meantime, I have removed the unverified statement and accompanying references. --DieWeisseRose 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since you don't believe the medical literature, I added a quote from one of my colleagues who does. See the quote from Eichner. That, even in the world of Wikipedia, constitutes "verification," even if medical science does not. Billollib 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with so-called medical literature. The problem is with your usage of it. It simply does not support the assertion: "ammonia spirits have been in wide use for over a century, a death due to the use of ammonia inhalant has never been demonstrated." If you properly quote and reference Eichner then I won't have a problem with that, either.--DieWeisseRose 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific on what you want. It is not listed in standard lists of adverse effects. Experts state that a death due to the use of ammonia inhalant has never been demonstrated. Dr. Adams does not dispute it. All of these are referenced. What more, exactly, do you want? I'm pretty tired of playing "what am I thinking" with you. Billollib —Preceding comment was added at 04:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone was "playing" then it was you and not me. Your current revision looks fine and reflects what the sources actually say. Good job. --DieWeisseRose 06:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Trial

[edit]

I think moving the comments after the trial to a new section is fine, but if you put the description of the prosecution expert testimony under the description of the trial itself, then you should not put the description of the defense expert testimony in the commentary section. Billollib 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. I was pretty tired when I did that! Anyway, the evaluation of the trial doesn't belong in the account of what happened. It should simply be a narration. I certainly agree that the prosecution's case was too complex, and had the appearance of being contradictory. But, that's an evaluation of the case, rather than a description of the trial. Post mortems can go on forever.Fconaway 08:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CASE

[edit]

I THINK THIS ENTIRE PAGE IS BEING WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO GET THEIR INFORMATION BY ALOT OF HEARSAY, OR MEDIA.I TRIED TO ADD MORE FACTS TO THIS PAGE AND I GET LABELED AS A VANDAL. THIS PAGE IS ABOUT MARTIN ANDERSON AND INCLUDING THE CAESE, THERE IS NO CONTREVERSY. IT WAS PROVEN A COURT OF LAW OF BEING NOT GUILTY. SOME BACHGROUND SHOULD BE TOLD ABOUT HIM AND HIS FATHER. THIS PAGE IS VERY BIASED TO THIS KNOWN CRIMINAL. HE WAS CONVICTED OF HIS CRIMES, THIS IS WHY HE WAS AT THE BOOT CAMP TO BEGIN WITH. SO IF YOU DONT LIKE WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING YOU SHOULD PROTEST IN A BETTER WAY. YES BELIEVE IT OR NOT I HAVE KNOWLEDE OF THE CASE AND ALL OF THE PRECEDINGS BEFORE AND EVEN BEFORE HE WAS ADMITTED IN THE BOOT CAMP. IF YOU WANT TO RE-VERIFY MY STATEMENTS THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT. I AM NOT GOING TO LIST ALL THE AREA LINKS( BAY COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, BAY COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE AND ETC.) ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA STANDARS I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE VERIFICATIONAND IF IT IS ABOUT MARTIN ANDERSON'S DEATH OR THE TRIAL THEN IS IS GOOD. THIS SHOULD BE REMANED TO THE MARTIN ANDERSON'S/BOOT CAMP TRIAL. THEN HIS RECORD SHOULD BE NOTED AND THE BACK GROUNDS OF THE DI'S AND THE NURSE, SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WENT UP FOR TRIAL. ALSO THERE ARE STATEMENTS FROM HIS PARENTS THEN THIER BACKGROUND SHOULD BE NOTIFIED ALSO. BUT SINCE I LIVE HERE AND WENT TO THE COURT CASE A FEW DAYS/ SAW IT LIVE HERE AT THE COURT HOUSE/JUVENILE CENTER I HAVE VAST KNOLEDGE OF THIS CASE AND I KNOW HIS TEACHER AT BAY HAVEN SCHOOL, AND A FEW LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES HERE ALSO. TOO MANT TO ADD. AND I DID NOT DELETE ANY STATEMET FROM THEXAMINERS OR ANY THING FROM THE COURT HEARING. I DID ADD WHAT HIS MOTHER SAID AFTER THE TRIAL AND IT PISSED PEOPLE OFF AND THEY DELETED THAT SO ......IF YOU DO NOTT LIKE WHAT I SAY AND WHAT I PUT YOU SHOULD NOT DELETE THIS. OH GO AHEAD AND OPEN A CUP OF SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.15.112 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no -- some of us are experts in the fields involved who are not only knowledgeable about the issues but have an intimate knowledge of the case. However, that's not really the point. The point is that there are many people with many opinions who can easily edit the page. It turns out, though, that there are generally agreed-upon rules to editing these things. The first is that you don't just write stuff that isn't verified. If you think that Mr. Anderson's previous record is important, then you need to do two things. First, you have to provide verification of what you claim. You can't simply write stuff -- you need to provide documentation. Second, you have to show that it is relevant to the article. There is an ambiguity with this article as to whether it is really a biography (in which case a previous record might be relevant) or simply a discussion of the young man's death (in which case his previous record is arguably irrelevant).
Second, you really shouldn't just delete what other people write just because you don't agree with it. For instance, you deleted the various expert witness interpretations of Mr. Anderson's death. While I happen to agree with you that Mr. Anderson died because of exertional sickle cell trait crisis, the *fact* is that his death was attributed to other things by well-recognized and respected experts. You shouldn't just delete those opinions because you don't like them.
When people just delete things they don't like and add stuff without verification, that's called vandalism.
You, like everyone else in the world, are welcome to add your knowledge to this page. However, there are rules for doing it -- otherwise it would simply degenerate into pissed off people with agendas deleting everything they didn't like. There's lots about this page I don't like, but I don't change it because the statements have verification and are in appropriate sections. There are lots of things I've added that other people don't like, but they don't change it becasue the statements have verification and are in appropriagte sections. You are welcome to join in the fun, but you need to play by the rules. Billollib 02:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first you do not have intimate knowlegde of this case, just because you are a ME does not mean you have intimate knowlegde. unless you were there and heard every word then dont say you are even an expert ( someone who took the stand or even a defendant. i also beleive someone should put on here the background of the defendants here and their words. this whold page should be deleted. oh and his parents should go to hell they dont even care for their dead son, just the money. REMEBER THAT!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I *do* have intimate knowledge of the case. I was an advisor to Dr. Siebert. I arranged for the radio interviews with Drs. DiMaio, Levy, et al. I helped write and was a cosigner of the open letter to the Tallahassee Democrat. I know *all* of the pathology consultants in this case. I have read the depositions. I have read the internal correspondence between the MEC and Dr. Siebert and their counsel.

so how did you get your hands on the depositions? and so you know them still does not mean you know the case. anyone can opena newspaper . unless you were there at the bootcamp, at the trial and on the autopsy table then you are not intimate with this case. dont even think you are the expert in this case. you need to stick with your company/office...thank you very much sweetie......anonymous.....

Page move

[edit]

This page was moved back without discussion. As it is clearly about Anderson's death, rather than about his life, it isn't a biography and shouldn't pretend to be one. Please discuss this prior to moving it back again. Chris Cunningham 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was wierd. You did that at the same time I was adding a reference. I hit "save" and the page disappeared! It scared me to death -- I thought I had deleted everything. I agree with you that this has more todo with the controversy than a true biography, though I don't particularly care what it is called. Billollib 17:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is not any controversy. this should be about him and the case. so there should be some back ground about him. before the case , yes a contreversy, but now since they have been found not guilty, there is none now.

should or could be listed as MARTIN ANDERSON /BOOT CAMP TRIAL

Tallahassee Marches

[edit]

I don't have time to dig them up, but the Tallahassee Democrat [3] has articles on two marches that took place in Tallahassee recently. One was on the day the verdict was announced and the other was last week (Thursday or Friday). The goals are to demand federal civil rights charged be brought in the case. CJ 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshed out the introduction

[edit]

Per the criticism, I have enlarged the introduction. Billollib (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good. I've added a few links to subjects which appeared pertinent to the context. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't have a clue how to do that. Billollib (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siebert Firing

[edit]

Charlie Siebert was attacked and fired because he called this an exertional sickle cell death. If the last part of his firing is not relevant to this article, then the first part is not. The fact is that the criticism of Dr. Siebert and the attacks on his integrity, the vindication of his testimony in court and the acquittal of the guards, and his subsequent removal in spite of it, with the associated response from the National Association of Medical Examiners, the County Commissioners, and the Medical Examiner community are integral parts of this story. If you want to delete his firing, then you need to tell me what evidence you have that it is not related to this case in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is. Billollib (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article began as a discussion of what happened to Martin Anderson. We are getting far afield here.Fconaway (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but in fact, this has always been an article about what happened to Mr. Anderson *and the fallout from it.* If, in fact this article is *only* about what happened to Mr. Anderson and not about the political consequences, then 90% of the article can be deleted and this can be rewritten as a medicolegal article. In fact, however, the correspondent who renamed the article as the "Martin Anderson Controversy" is substantively correct -- it is, and always has been, as much about the attempts of various groups to dominate the narrative about the death as of the death itself. As such, if the beginning and middle are relevant, then the final results are important as well. If the accusations against the guards are pertinent, then so are the results of the trial. If the attacks on Dr. Siebert are pertinent, then so are the results of those attacks.Billollib (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this whole article can and should be up for deletion. it is one sides, does not say anything for the defendants and the reason why he was visiting there in the first place. there is nothing contreversy about this. it was taken to court and decided. it is finished and shut case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hardly "one-sided." It is, in fact, the result of multiple compromises made by multiple people with multiple points of view. It provides the basic concepts of the controversy, provides the source of its notoriety, presents the timeline of the controversy, and notes the denoument. It is certainly not what I would like to see were I to write it myself, but as a collaborative article, it's not bad. Billollib (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this entire artcle is one sided...does it once mention the guards point a view or their side of this. no it does not. it also portrays this young kid a nice good kid. which by far he is not. this kid was aknown gang member and a drug dealer and now a car thief( which is why he was there in the first place. signed anonymous...thank you sweetie...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Deletions

[edit]

Ford1206's assertion that the links he keeps deleting have nothing to do with the controversy is incorrect. Further, his assertion that they are "one sided" is further incorrect. In fact, the last one, to billoblog.com, provides a position in direct contradiction to the others. Thus, they are not one-sided, and they are not irrelevant to the article. Billollib (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

be able to put what i want......signed anoymous....thank you sweetie.....

these are one side and irrelevant with the court case and the beating of known gang member. also if this will be kept then also lets talk about the reason why this youth was put in the boot camp for disciplenary actions. he was a known gang member and a drug dealer. he was got trepassing on school grounds. he was asked to leave and did not. he was given probation. he then a few months later to steal his grandmothers car for a joy ride with some friends. he was given 6 weeks boot camp, which we all know he did not even take one day of his sentence. he was not beat to death ( court proofed that). his parents had nothing to do with him for years. so you want some contreversy lets go............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, your statements about his gang membership, etc. are irrelevent to your claims that the sites have nothing to do with the controversy. The first does not justify deleting the latter. Second, if you have *documented* information about his record, etc. then feel free to add it. Simple assertions, however, are not enough. Please provide documentation for your claims.

they are one sided....one tells about the kids history(which they dont have his criminal history) making him seem like he was anice and good kid. the other site is a blog site which is against wikipedia standards....thank you anoymous......


do not change it back to the biased and harsh words again. the guards were not coerced nor was this racially motivated. the court of law proofed this. i repeat court of law proofed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look up the info yourself

[edit]

This is not a valid response to the request for citation. Wikipedia is the place where you look to find the references, you don't just make assertions and refuse to provide citiations for them. If you cannot provide citation for the inflammatory data you insert, then don't insert it. If it is true, then provide the citation.

In addition, your claim that weblogs are not appropriate for the "external links" section is not supported as far as I can tell. External links are evaluated differently than internal references on most of the entries I have seen. In fact, looking at your own editing, I see that you don't adhere to this in your own editing. I looked up your history and note that you added a number of pornographic web pages to your editing of the "Peaches" entry. Billollib (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


it is true and where does it say i have to insert my references. so it is ok for you to add blog pages but i can add my facts to the story? what kind of sense is that? further more pornographic pages are not blog sites. your site is in violation of wikipedia rules......thank you...anoymous......bye sweetie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. See WP:ONEVENT Wizardman 05:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Martin Anderson death controversy → Martin Lee Anderson — This page is written about the person. The title is about the person. The categories are about the person. The "death controversy" titles should redirect to the biography. Alternatively, the article should be rewritten to be about the controvery and the categories removed, etc. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed POV from intro discussion of video

[edit]

I removed the "dragging the body around" bit from the intro because the interpretation of the video is actually part of the controversy. The statement as written begs this issue. Billollib (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Martin Anderson case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Martin_Anderson&oldid=1204845458"