Talk:Martin Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 References 2 Siebert 3 Run-on sentence, "black and detention advocacy groups" 4 Alleged Conspiracy 5 Unencyclopedic? 6 Removing "Unencyclopedic" Template 7 NPOV

[edit] References

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)

[edit] Siebert

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

... 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)

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)

No, has to be verifiable.. WP:V specifically mentions blogs as being unacceptable sources, too. Pfalstad 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense.Billollib 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] Run-on sentence, "black and detention advocacy groups"

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Alleged Conspiracy

Removed POV and story of a case that is not related to Martin Anderson. Billollib 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic?

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)

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

[edit] Removing "Unencyclopedic" Template

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)

[edit] NPOV

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's laryngospasm. And it's not what Baden diagnosed -- mechanical asphyxia. They are different things.Billollib 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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