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