User:TachyonJack/brainstorming
Appearance
- opening and closing
- independant of systems of orginization
- included with whatever other system I come up with
- how to organize
- chronologically
- week one
- text
- week two
- text
- week three
- text
- week one
- by part of trial
- organized by witness
- evans
- direct examination
- cross examination
- Pelt
- direct examination
- cross examination
- etc.
- evans
- organized by part
- direct examination
- Evans
- Pelt
- cross examination
- Evans (by irving)
- Pelt (by irving)
- Irving (by rampton)
- direct examination
- organized by side
- claimant
- opening
- cross examination of witnesses
- pelt
- evans
- cross examination by rampton
- direct examination of witnesses
- Watt
- Keegan
- that evolutionary historian (forgot his name)
- closing
- defense
- opening
- direct of witnesses
- Evans
- Pelt
- cross of witnesses
- Irving
- other claimant witnesses (watt keegan, etc.)
- closing
- claimant
- organized by general routine
- openings?
- define routine
- defense direct of witness
- irving cross of witness
- rampton cross of irving
- routine applied to each witness
- Evans
- Pelt
- closings?
- organized by witness
- by subject (note that these divisions could substitute for any division by witness)
- divided in half (the trial itself was divided along these half's)
- Aushwitz
- Everything Else (basically all about irving)
- divided in three (according to the defense strategy)
- Aushwitz (showing that no reasonable historian would have cause for doubt, implying irving is not a reasonable historian) (done by Pelt Browning and Longerich)
- Irving's political associations (done by funke)
- Evidence of Irving deilberately manipulating the historical record (done by evans)
- divided in 5 (according to the distinct defamatory claims that Lipstadt's statements were divided into by the judge)
- what to do with ruling section?
- get rid of the ruling section, and append the findings the judge made about each of these claims onto its particular section
- keep the ruling section
- how this division would look
- defamatory claim
- evidence provided by defense
- evidence provided by claimant (or perhaps condense these two into one)
- judges ruling (if in fact I decide to put it there)
- next defamatory claim
- evidence provided by defense
- evidence provided by claimant (or perhaps condense these two into one)
- judges ruling (if in fact I decide to put it there)
- etc.
- defamatory claim
- what to do with ruling section?
- divided in half (the trial itself was divided along these half's)
- chronologically
- how much stuff should be included
- how much evidence should I include
- how much of the proceedings should I report
- how much of the atmosphere (for instance the reporters and spectators) should I describe
- do i even need a section on the trial?
- what about the reports? should i include some of their contents?
- is this ultimately about the trial itself or about presenting evidence for the holocaust
- to what extent should i model,say, other featured articles about law cases
- they all seem to be, shall i say, less detailed, less involved
- is that just because of the cases they are describing
- should I myself be modelling those articles?
- they all seem to be, shall i say, less detailed, less involved