Talk:Danny Casolaro

NPOV

"A conspiracy theory developed around the case, with allegations that "back doors" had been inserted into the software so that whomever the Justice Department had sold it to could be spied upon."

Conspiracy theory, sort of like what Edward Snowden exposed to be true?

Untitled

Hag2, Dixie Brown and several others have been blocked as sockpuppets of Anne Teedham, this is one of several severely damaged pages. This editor has made allegations of involvement in homicides against one of the subjects of editing, a known witness who's documents have been featured in recently breaking news stories regarding arrest of an organized crime suspect in a triple homicide. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/station/as-seen-on/Suspect_Arrested_in_Triple_Murder__Had_Been_Given_Immunity_Los_Angeles.html Note the Cabazon Arms document at the end of this news story is from the files of Michael Riconosciuto, last document on this page. The Riconosciuto page has also been severely vandalized by these and other sockpuppets. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/jpn/ Winksatfriend (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

Copyright problem Image:MichaelRiconosciuto.jpg

see Archive 1

[This is a long discussion which ends with securing the proper copyright from ZDF, a television station in German that has yet to answer two polite emails requesting copyright permission.]

"Remaining questions and allegations" section

"Remaining questions and allegations" is unencyclopedic and silly. The article has no business asserting questions from conspiracy authors. The article is to give facts, that is all. We66er (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you have miscontrued the subsection Remaining questions.... These are facts; they are not the suppositions of "conspiracy authors". Granted, the story of Danny Casolaro's investigation into whatever he saw within his connections of A-to-Z eventually encompassed thousands of conspiracy websites, writings, and on-the-fringe lunatics... but I am not willing to give into your opinion that this subsection "has no business asserting questions from conspiracy authors". Elliot Richardson, Jack Brooks, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Henry C. Lee, Dr. Anthony Casolaro, and Thomas Gates are hardly to be considered "conspiracy authors". With regard to James Ridgeway, Doug Vaughan, C.D. Seltzer, and David Corn—the principal authors in the main body of the article—they backup their assertions with reliable and credible factual reporting. Hag2 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of View

Article claims Casalaro committed suicide! This is lies, he was murdered! Conwiki 03:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. If you have good, sourced evidence for his murder, then review the NPOV policy and add it according to the guidelines. --Viriditas | Talk 06:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia. It is a tool used by power to control the flow of information. This is far from the first dishonest, poorly cited, misleading, corporatist wikipedia article. 70.16.96.109 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Is not it possible to write the article in a way that does not rule out violent death? I don't want to make every point, but that the embalming was incorrect is a very clear observation. When specialists start implying that (the towels affair) the police makes the case, when non religious people mention god in suicide notes, its all very classical. And after all even some cia agents don't want to lie over his death. As far as him being depressed on that evening goes ,(it seems so heavily weighted in the article) barmen are not always the better witnesses; since he was manipulated by phone , he may have had disturbing phonecalls or a dip in the research(that was actually the case), he may have received new threats, or even have suspected he was in problems over his head. All decent reasons to seem somewhat depressed. So especially since his close friends had been informed not to take everything for granted and even informed them of not having suicidal intentions,the lousy investigation, the mingling with proof, professional disappearance of his papers, and the deep slashes, i think he was killed professionally, and for sad reasons since much of what he was finding has been uncovered after. The exact circle of killers may be deduced by comparative analysis of murders and suspect suicides in the years it happened. For me the article indeed is strongly in denial.77.248.56.242

I believe that POV is handled fairly well throughout the article. By the end, it is quite apparent that there are two separate issues: suicide or murder. Neither carries more weight than the other. The purpose of the article is not to decide which of the two is the better but rather to present facts surrounding the biography of Danny Casolaro. The final two paragraphs of What was the Octopus summarize everything well:

"Casolaro alleged that he was nearly ready to have revealed a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy spanning Iran-Contra, the October Surprise Conspiracy, the closure of Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and the bombing of Pan Am 103, — involving the Central intelligence Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the U.S. Justice Dept, the Wackenhut Corporation, Mossad, and MI5 and MI6 British Secret Services. Writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, Phil Linsalata notes:

"Any one of those stories of course is a challenge for America's best journalists. Casolaro wanted to tackle them all."[43]

Ridgeway and Vaughn wondered, "—why Danny? Dozens of reporters have explored the same terrain.... And Casolaro had never written an article on the Octopus for any publication." [44]

Hag2 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BELOW COMMENT (from IHAVE): I agree that to just "claim" it was murder (above: "This is lies, he was murdered!") would require evidence. The comment saying "if you have good sourced evidence..." seems appropriate to me, if I understand correctly, [Note: is an above sentence indicating that some cia agents have testified as to the cause of death? The sentence is confusing] ABOVE: FROM IHAVE --Ihaveabutt (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

---

David Corn: Apples and Oranges | Made more clear

---

In David Corn's quote, he seems to use to use two different (high versus low) standards, to asses the murder and suicide possibilities.

David Corn's standard to judge the Murder idea:

He judges the "murder" idea against a standard of whether it is "conclusive", a high standard (conclusive is like saying certain).

David Corn's standard to judge the Suicide idea:

He judges the suicide idea by a standard of whether it is plausible (at all). Plausible is a lower standard, something like "possible"; it doesn't require certainty or finality (as in the murder standard).

The David Corn Quote:

However, no conclusive evidence of murder has been found David Corn of The Nation wrote, "Anomalies do not add up to a conclusive case for murder...; [the] suicide explanation is unsatisfying but not wholly implausible; the possibility of murder is intriguing but the evidence to date is not overwhelming."

It would be ok for him (or anyone) to take whatever position the evidence leads to, but then we need the same standard. We need to know for BOTH (suicide and murder) whether they are conclusive, not apples for one and oranges for the other.

I am not saying David Corn is intentionally unfair, and his article might indeed be important; I am only saying that the quote is not suitable for an encyclopedia which aims to be balanced.

[Aside: I am surprised someone privately (mytalk) threatened me to ban or bar me from making suggestions, instead of just asking for clarification.]

POINT TWO

Another commenter explained that David Corn "really means": "Corn merely says nothing is conclusive."

Really? .. How can we know from the quote?". If it is true that his (article's) view is that nothing is conclusive, then the evidence supporting this from his article should be included, not excluded.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC) CORRECTED / UPDATED by "IHAVE" due to useful suggestions --Ihaveabutt (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

PRIOR COMMENT BY OTHER PARTICIPANT

David Corn's quote summarizes everything well. His quote does not provide "a logically imbalanced emphasis" to either the possibility of murder, or the likelihood of suicide. Disassembling his remarks into various phrases without interpreting his entire quote as a single element, is self-serving. Corn merely says nothing is conclusive: or, in other words, Casolaro's death could be either murder or suicide, but to date there is no overwhelming evidence. His point of view is exactly what an average reader comes to realize by the time that reader finishes the complete article. —Dixie Brown (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

A peer review was performed by User:DrKiernan on 3 October 2008 using a "semi-automatic javascript program, which highlights minor issues of style." That review has now been archived. Hag2 (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I read through that peer review and thought that this article needed another opinion. But someone changed my opinion which I had listed as A. Can't figure this place out yet. No big deal. I've looked through your other stuff and like how you cross reference everything. Keep up the good work. I'll try to figure out what that other guy meant. ThsQ (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hotel or motel?

see Archive 1

[This is a long discussion about the Lead sentence's reference to "motel". The outcome of which was to rewrite the Lead to "hotel". It is also about securing the proper copyright permission from IHCGroup for an image of the old-Sheraton Hotel on Interstate 81 in Martinsburg, WVA.]

Notes and References section

see Archive 1

[This is a unresolved discussion centering around the subject matter of how to properly footnote the many references and notes in the article.]

Peter Videnieks

I created a stub on Peter Videnieks to fill the void which existed. It is now ready for as much additional information as we can find. I look forward to everyone's input.ThsQ (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again a Case for Balance (with a correction)

The original Corn quote seems imbalanced, and that was the only point I had been trying to make. The dissent below (block quoted) seems very strange to me (talking about syntax and grammar)

However, no conclusive evidence of murder has been found. David Corn of The Nation wrote, "Anomalies do not add up to a conclusive case for murder...; [the] suicide explanation is unsatisfying but not wholly implausible; the possibility of murder is intriguing but the evidence to date is not overwhelming."

This David Corn quote above expends more of his effort knocking down murder; and less knocking down suicide. Compare the parts (above) with and without emphasis.

CORRECTED (own text) 'Ihave' due to duplication of apology --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC) CORRECTED (own text) 'Ihave' due to useful suggestions --Ihaveabutt (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC) (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

PRIOR COMMENT BY DIXIE:

If you wish to debate elements of logic, go to a philosophy forum. Wikipedia articles are written hopefully to inform, to present factual information. In your arguments against David Corn's grammatical structure and syntax, perhaps you are correct. Whether or not, your arguments about Corn's sentence structure are relevant to the Danny Casolaro article is not debatable as far as I am concerned. They appear to be disruptive and self-serving. Some editors in Wikipedia have coined an expression for what you appear to be doing; it is called "coatrack". Before I commented upon your comment here, I checked your other contributions in Wikipedia and found further commentary of yours at David Corn's talkpage. Please confine your arguments regarding his sentence structure, syntax, logic, or whatever else you wish to bemoan over there, or on your own talkpage. If you continue to disrupt the Danny Casolaro article for the purpose of engaging debate in arguments for the purpose of illustrating a point of your own, then I will seek to have you blocked from the Danny Casolaro article. Wikipedia Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. (see here). Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. (and here). Lastly, several editors have provided you with excellent welcome messages on your talkpage I suggest that you take the time to follow their links, to understand what guiding principles are behind Wikipedia editing. —Dixie Brown (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications...

Comments here dated and superseded: see archive.

Requested quotations

I inserted two requests for full quotations. One for the David Corn quote discussed above. The other for a reference to Lyndon LaRouche. Both references are in David Corn's article in The Nation. It is not web accessible, unless purchased. —Dixie Brown (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche--see page 164 of Micheal T. Hurley's I Solemnly Swear [1] Hurley says: "According to Rosenbaum's article, the 'key lieutenant of conspiracy-cult leader Lyndon LaRouche' brought Riconosciuto to the Hamiltons." So it looks like we need to go directly to Rosenbaum, not Corn. Anne Teedham (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Annie. That's interesting. I also found a reference to Jack Anderson. According to a interview between Bobbie Riconosciuto and Dave Emory (if I recall correctly), Jack Anderson called Michael and said, "You need to contact this reporter, Danny Casolaro ...". But I'm not buying that scenario really because I think both Riconosciutos are well-versed in the art of fabrication. I'm beginning to think that there is not a shred of truth in anything related to Michael Riconosciuto. Your link to Hurley's book is fantastic. It sheds a great deal of light on background relevant to Inslaw too: i.e. Lester Coleman, another huckster, conman, in a growing list of fabricators. —Dixie Brown (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead

What are your objections, Hag? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I am not saying that there is something wrong with your changes to the Lead. However, I believe that we editors should discuss those changes first. For example, your reference to BCCI scandal is a stretch. In the volumes of decent research material available there is very little mention of Casolaro's investigation into BCCI. Yes, he listed that as an area of interest in his notes, but no scholars on his death truly recognize him as an active participant in BCCI. —Dixie Brown (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure he was an active participant in any of it really. He hadn't published anything, and there were no plans to publish in the near future. BCCI was definitely on his list of Octopus-related material. BTW, if you don't actually object to someone's edit, there's no need to revert it.

Do you have concerns about anything other than the reference to BCCI? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Casolaro went to Washington State to interview Riconosciuto. For over a week, he trapsed around in swampland looking for Riconosciuto's alleged tape. Casolaro eventually became so engrossed in his research around Inslaw that his death occurred. So...in answer to your not being "sure he was an active participant in any of it really", it appears as though you are not very familiar with what Casolaro actually did. Just because something was "on his list of Octopus-related material" should not be a reason to place emphasis upon it in the Lead of the article. Casolaro also wrote something about Wackenhut/Cabazon joint venture in his notes but there is no true evidence that he actually became overly envolved in that side story; however it's more relevant than BCCI. Yes, I have other concerns. Your placing emphasis upon Ron Rosenbaum's speculation gives that speculation too much emphasis. I elected to revert your changes because you did not attempt to discuss these details first. —Dixie Brown (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You write that, "Casolaro eventually became so engrossed in his research around Inslaw that his death occurred," as though he was killed. Bear in mind that no evidence of murder was found, and no reliable sources say he was murdered, to the best of my knowledge. Wikipedia has to reflect what the majority of reliable sources say. Which part of Rosenbaum's speculation do you object to, and why is it any different from all the other speculation? The narrative is, after all, entirely speculative, given that no one knows what happened. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Look. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I did not say a word about Casolaro being murdered. Let's not digress this difference of opinion into a battle over suicide or murder. Let the facts speak for themselves. The "majority of reliable sources" would be HR 102-857, those investigators determined that there was sufficient reason to call for further investigation. But Martinsburg police decided to rest upon its own poor investigation and two suicide "hearings" which failed to address facts of importance. When Thomas Gates of the FBI suggested that there was a need for further investigation of someone like Robert Booth Nichols, it appears as though that investigation took place behind closed doors (HR 102-857). Yet, writing after the fact, Elliot Richardson spoke freely (Rebuttal to Bua Report), casting suspicion on one man in particular, Joseph Cuellar. Then, later, William Hamilton further elaborately on the subject of the death and whom may have been responsible (Addendum to HR 102-857), but the full Senate made no decision on that score (or determination) after access to more information than to which you or I are privvy.

In reading through all that background, one wonders why not because there seems to be sufficient reason for an indepth investigation by good investigators but that's the way it is right now. Rosenbaum's speculation is discussed in some degree by the close of the article. His theory is given sufficient weight, just as all other theories. Whether it was suicide or murder, should not be the emphasis of this article. David Corn's quote (which you removed) adequately summarized both possibilities: suicide and murder. The Lead as written fairly summarizes the entire article. Your alteration places far too much emphasis upon speculation, not research. —Dixie Brown (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes are rarely appropriate in the lead. The current lead over-emphasizes the conspiracy theory. The known facts are that he had just been diagnosed with MS (which bizarrely isn't even mentioned in the lead) and that he was found with his wrists slashed (also not mentioned!). All else is speculation, given that it largely relies on his notes, which he wrote himself. It's not known whether he did in fact meet a source, and if he did, who that source was, or what issue s/he was a source for. Please stick to reliable, published sources, observing WP:UNDUE. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to me that you have read either the Lead or the article carefully. Furthermore, I have cited only reliable sources. You have cited nothing other than Ron Rosenbaum's seculative Vanity Fair article. I place much geater emphasis upon congressional material than I do a mainstream magazine. I am going to discontinue our discussion now. I will be happy to continue it later, tomorrow maybe. Or whenever you propose. During the hiatus, I will look seriously at everything you have written so far. It would help in this discussion if you would begin citing reliable sources such as the ones which I have cited. A good third opinion on this matter would be User:Wildhartlivie who shares your opinion about quotations. I do not have a problem with rewriting the Lead. Yet I do not intend to support an emphasis on either murder or suicide. Rosenbaum's theory is a theory. Neither Gary Lee, nor David Corn demonstrate anything regarding conspiracy. It is true that the word "conspiracy" is used twice in the Lead. The Lead was written over two years ago by previous editors who have never reappeared. However, conspiracy is the primary word which summarizes Danny Casolaro's last year of life. He was overwhelmed by it. Perhaps the fact that Casolaro discovered that Riconosciuto was a lying fabricator without any conscience (an certainly no explosive evidence) was enough to spiral Casolaro into severe depression. There is a telling sentence in his Behold A Pale Horse (the alleged rough draft of his Octopus) about his loss of faith in Riconosciuto but I am afraid that I can not cite that at the moment for two reasons: I am not sure that he wrote it, and I do not know exactly where in my history that quote is located. But I think there is something that you are overlooking here. That something is Peter Videnieks. Videnieks was well within Casolaro's thoughts in his final week. The record indicates that: After returning from Washington State, Casolaro may have learned something which then caused Videnieks to refuse to cooperate with investigators. Keep in mind Videnieks was accused of stealing Promis and of giving it to Earl Brian. Videnieks (and his wife) live very close to Martinsburg. Take a good look at Videnieks' photo. Remember what some observers said about someone looking "Middle Eastern". Does it mean that Videnieks is a suspect? Who knows. Who cares. I believe that our work here should reflect only the research material, and then present that material in a readable article which others can digest for whatever reason. Ask Wildhartlivie to offer her opinion. Or propose a RFC. I welcome as much input as can be found. I value your input, but I've got to go now. —Dixie Brown (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the copy edit in the meantime, because the current lead omits two of the most important facts, both confirmed by reliable sources, viz. the diagnosis of MS and his slashed wrists. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: I'm following along with this conversation carefully. I accessed books.goggle.com for the relevant quote about Casolaro and BCCI, and it does not sound like Casolaro spent much time looking into BCCI. See for yourself: JiggleJog (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the Village Voice article and Vanity Fair, you'll see it referenced just as much as the rest. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have. I do not agree. Please present the specific quotes from the two sources. JiggleJog (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

E.g. from Village Voice: "In particular, Casolaro was interested in what he called the "Octopus," a network of individuals and institutions that he believed had secretly masterminded a whole series of scandals, from the Iran-Contra affair and the S&L debacle to the BCCI collapse and the 1980 October Surprise deal."

What makes you think he wasn't looking at BCCI? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire quote below. It suggests that Casolaro discussed the BCCI (as would any investigator of the day) but it continues "...reporters wanted to know what Casolaro was working on, and Beaty was one of the last people to talk to him about his work. He had not been able to provide much help, since Casolaro's project had seemed extremely complex and was difficult to follow..." Had Casolaro had any true research into BCCI? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds only like: "What can you tell me? What can I tell you." That's not in depth research, certainly not enough to say that Casolaro was deeply involved to the same extent that he was in Inslaw. I think Ridgeway also threw in MI 5 and 6. But there is no real record for Casolaro looking into British Intelligence investigations. I think you are distorting the facts. JiggleJog (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No one said anything about British intelligence. He was looking into BCCI, Inslaw, October Surprise, the full gamut of that decade's conspiracy theories. That's why he called it the Octopus: he was trying to find the unified field theory. You won't find a reliable, comprehensive source that says otherwise. If I'm wrong, please show me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The original lead which stood the test of 2 years I think said "His research centered around a complex bankruptcy case (Inslaw Inc. v. United States Government), and a sprawling conspiracy theory supposedly connected to it." But your desire seems to want to include what comes later in the body of the article "Casolaro alleged that he was nearly ready to have revealed a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy spanning Iran-Contra, the October Surprise Conspiracy, the closure of Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and the bombing of Pan Am 103—involving the Central Intelligence Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the U.S. Justice Dept, the Wackenhut Corporation, Mossad, and MI5 and MI6 British Secret Services." I don't think anyone is disputing that THE OCTOPUS supposedly covered everything unified as you suggest. But the scope of what Casolaro was involved in at the time of his death was INSLAW, and "a sprawling conspiracy theory supposedly connected to it." I also think that you are attempting to make the lead suggest suicide as the most likely cause of his death when in fact the original lead merely suggests it is an either/or possibility depending upon further investigation. Mae Sendikson (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that's a POV, not a fact. The facts as known are that he believed he was researching all those issues. That's what the sources say, and that's what we have to run with. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, Mae, what brought you to this page today? I see you'd not edited for eight days before your comment here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote

Less than two weeks later a similar story hit much closer to home. [This is in reference to the death of Anson Ng .] On August 10, a Washington, D.C., freelance writer named Danny Casolaro, who had also been working on BCCI as part of a larger story, was found dead in a Martinsburg, West Virginia, motel room. He was discovered in a bathtub surrounded by a pool of blood. Though it was immediately ruled a suicide, there were enough unanswered questions that the press jumped all over the story. He had supposedly killed himself by slashing his wrists--except that the cuts had been phenomenally deep, all the way through the tendons. There was also evidence that someone else had been in the room with him. "It looked like someone tried to wipe up the blood on the floor and slid the towels under the sink," one of the motel's housekeepers said in a magazine interview. "It looked like someone threw the towels on the floor and tried to wipe the blood with their foot, but they didn't get the blood, they just smeared it on the floor."

Casolaro's death led to a strange interlude for Beaty in Hermosa Beach. By coincidence a last entry in Danny Casolaro's calender read: "Call Jonathan" Ten days prior to his death Casolaro had met with Beaty at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington, D.C. Casolaro had wanted to compare notes and get advice on how to see his idea for an investigative story about a conspiracy called "the Octopus" to book publishers. The two had discussed BCCI at length. When reporters covering the story discovered the entry in Casolaro's calendar, Beaty began to receive several telephone calls a day; the reporters wanted to know what Casolaro was working on, and Beaty was one of the last people to talk to him about his work. He had not been able to provide much help, since Casolaro's project had seemed extremely complex and was difficult to follow, and he had told Beaty nothing about his upcoming trip to Martinsburg.

Through no one could be sure what to make of the deaths of Casolaro and Ng, they suggested that there might at least be some danger in covering the story. That had led Beaty and Gwynne to take further steps to secure their telephone conversations. Beaty had developed his cellular cutout system a year before, based on the techniques used by the Colombian cocaine cartels, not to avoid taps but to confound the Time Los Angeles bureau chief to whom he nominally reported. Beaty disliked having to appear regularly in the Los Angeles bureau--where a hapless reporter could be handed an unwanted minor assignment just because he was standing there when a warm body was needed--unless it was unavoidable. Jordan Bonfante, the bureau chief, traveled a good deal and tended to keep track of correspondents by telephone. Even when he was in the bureau he would buzz reporters on the interoffice system once or twice a day from his corner office rather than walk down the hallway to chat, so the solution was obvious. Beaty set up things so that whenever the telephone in his office rang he could answer it, even if he happened to be working at home at the moment. Or sitting on the beach. In Hermosa or Miami.

— pages 224-5, Beaty, Jonathan and Gwynne, S.C. The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of BCCI. Beard Books, 2004, p. 224.

Theory and grounded conspiracy theory - different things

Wikipedia indicates that conspiracy theory means several very different things:

The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be (*) a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, (*) a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim without examination, and (*) a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some (*) for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is (*) that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.

These mixed meanings are hardly the same, leaving the reader wondering what the categorization means in the case of Danny's research. Could the source of this categorization please clarify: What is the statement?

Is it that:

(a) there was a problem with Danny's research - was it a mere jumble of unsourced speculations?

or it is controversial because

(b) Danny did not finish evidence collection and people in power are criticized?

If readers don't know what the editor means, then readers need to know what the editor may know on what grounds, for such a label to be productive.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

---

John Connolly as a source

A few days ago, I added some info from a 1993 Spy magazine article by John Connolly. User SlimVirgin reverted the page, writing "changes not an improvement, sources not the best." I added the information with the goal of improving the article, so I obviously disagree with the first part of her objection. SlimVirgin's claim that "Sources not the best" requires explanation, I think. I used only one source, Connolly's Spy magazine article. Spy was mostly satire, but occasionally featured serious investigative journalism, so I think it qualifies as a reputable source.

Connolly uncovered some information unknown to other sources for the article. Such information I think is worth having on this page includes:

A) That Martinsburg police withheld or neglected to share crime scene evidence with pathologist Henry C. Lee who reviewed the case. When Connolly shared this information with Lee, the latter retracted his conclusion that Casolaro committed suicide;

B) That Martinsburg police had a track record of not rigorously investigating suicides;

C) That Casolaro's embalming was a violation of state law since next-of-kin weren't notified, and expert medical opinion that the embalming rendered the subsequent autopsies "fatally flawed";

D) That the paramedic on the scene had never seen such deep wrist-wounds on a suicide, and that a university-level medical doctor thought the wounds and lack of hesitation marks were "significant" and "unusual";

E) That Casolaro uncovered some important information that was later independently verified;

F) That an FBI agent friend of Casolaro's said that Casolaro claimed that a source warned or threatened that Casolaro would die if he continued his investigation.

For most of these claims, Connolly cites names of known (and sometimes highly respected) individuals whose opinions went into the public record.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand the basis of SlimVirgin's claim that the source was "not the best." Room429 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The best approach for dealing with issues related to another editor's assumption of an article's ownership and distortion of factual information is to request a concensus of opinion of the Wikipedia general population. In judging whether or not to pursue a Request for Comment, a working knowledge of an article's page history will prove to be beneficial. In reference to your recent comments, I believe that you will find these two versions of the same details "insightful". From that point (in the page history) moving forward, pay particular attention to how SlimVirgin has rewritten the entire article to eliminate relevant details contained in the Footnotes and References of previous versions. —Merry Yellow (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Danny Casolaro. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024204513/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024204513/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/91/6/octopus.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024204513/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024204513/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/INSLAW/inslaw_hr.report

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) 14:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

New sources

I added a little but theres more from this year https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/sep/06/doj-promis-part-1/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/sep/08/doj-promis-part-2/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/16/FBI-promis-part-1/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/18/FBI-promis-part-2/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/30/fbi-octopus-murders/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/jul/26/doj-casolaro-missing-file/ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/may/08/fbi-Danny-Casolaro/

Lead link

A link to this 2016 article from CBS Las Vegas was recently added to the lead. As the CBS article itself notes, the list is conspiratorial hooey. This has no place for this on Casolaro's page, unless a section is on 'conspiratorial hooey' is added. In fact, the whole page is riddled with problematic material and edits from a gaggle of sockpuppets over a decade ago and has never been completely fixed. I will try and trim back the flowers in this walled garden in the semi-near future. Rgr09 (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)