User:TachyonJack/brainstorming

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
- by part of trial
  - organized by witness
    - evans
      - direct examination
      - cross examination
    - Pelt
      - direct examination
      - cross examination
    - etc.
  - organized by part
    - direct examination
      - Evans
      - Pelt
    - cross examination
      - Evans (by irving)
      - Pelt (by irving)
      - Irving (by rampton)
  - 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
  - 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?
- 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.

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?