Talk:Fritzl case/Archive 4

Elizabeth Fritzl interview

I posted a short paragraph here asking about whatever became of the much-ballyhooed May 26 interview, which neither this article nor google has nary a mention of anymore!

And yet it was DELETED! What the...?!

I am not a regular wiki contributor, so I apologize if I somehow posted incorrectly. I was respectful and added the four tildes as instructed. As I will do again today.

If this interview was quietly cancelled and/or covered up, it is certainly HUGE news! Why is this being left out?! This is surreal.

I can repost the prior version if need be. But I'll give this a shot instead for the moment.

TIA!

4.154.253.87 (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I too wondered why your post was deleted, although I can see why editors want to strictly limit Talk pages to discussing article improvements only. What you mention was one of those stories that was reported incorrectly and then snowballed in some other news outlets. If you've been monitoring the news stories regarding this case, you will notice that this is nothing new. Many of the tabloid-style news outlets take the most recent bit of news and inject a good deal of sensationalist, speculative spin on it. Cheers, Twalls (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was covered up. I, too, was a bit surprised that your post had disappeared. Twalls' assessment is right. I have Google News set up to send me news from UK sources and Austrian/German sources about the Fritzl case and it's stunning to see how "respectable" sources pick up tabloid stories, and mere speculation morphs into fact along the way. I think news magazines like Spiegel quote stories (at least in their online versions) from the Sun or Mail, without checking the truth content, for fear of missing a real breaking story. In the "interview" case, it was one Austrian newspaper that launched the story that there were talks about an interview with TV station ORF, just like in the Kampusch case, and that it may be broadcast within a week. ORF were quoted as "they neither confirmed nor denied plans to set up the interview". Elisabeth Fritzl's lawyer said soon afterwards that there are no plans for an interview but that did not stop this non-story from snowballing. Well, I am sure there are people making plans for an interview and hoping to be the first to get it but nothing seems imminent.--KathaLu (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

After thought re 4.154.253.87's comments: what makes you think there's a "cover up" that would be "huge news"? This isn't an episode of Lost, it's (no longer) a fast breaking news story, it's not Reality TV, it's not a movie. These are real people, traumatized in a way I can't even imagine, and what they do need, is what their doctors say who are hardly given a voice in the media: they need time, time, time, they need proper treatment, they need to be out of the public eye so that they can start to heal and plan and shape a future for themselves. One of their doctors actually appealed to the media to back off, calling their intrusive behaviour around the clinic an "idiocy that has to stop".--KathaLu (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted precisely because it was a non-story, like all the nonsense about Fritzl's religion. Wikipedia does not deal in conspiracy theories, rumour and speculation, which is what the post was, especially in relation to a BLP. When you start talking about "coverups" etc., you are on shaky ground. If there was an interview, or there was reliable information that there was going to be one, it would be included. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, HtD. I don't have much time at the moment but was already considering, before I read your message, to post a "Peace on Earth" comment to the contributors in this section, decorated by Christmas stars in the shape I remember them from my time in kindergarten, as I share the same cultural background as the majority of the people living in Southern German speaking regions. :-) --KathaLu (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It was right to delete the initial comments. A Wikipedia Talk Page is not a forum nor a bulletin board. If you wish to discuss issues pertaining to the article then you may do so here. However, if you wish to discuss speculative issues extraneous to the article then you are welcome to do so at any of the Internet sites to be found outside of Wikipedia. Tovojolo (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you all for the comments. However, I must inquire as to where you're all channeling information from. Many of you mock me or dismiss me for being "taken in" by reports of a planned interview, but these reports were widespread, frequent, and NEVER RETRACTED. Call them "speculative" if you want, but they were in ever-increasing detail, including actual channel listings for several countries. What happened Monday night, were 100 million people sitting in front of TVs worldwide waiting for Godot?

If this was all just a bunch of hot air, where are the dozens and dozens of columns pointing that out? Where are the hundreds (thousands) of letters to various editors expressing the same confusion as I had? How could the hype have continued unabated for a full week, then dropped to ZERO on the 20th?! Hoax or no hoax, something this big can't just disappear into THIN AIR!

I am as skeptical as the next guy about what I read in the papers -- especially online -- but the way most of you dismissed this out of hand, you might as well dismiss the entire case! Who here has been in that house? Who here has met Elizabeth Fritzl? All the information which makes up the wiki page is from the very same sources who insisted there was an interview coming!

The article needs a section on the hoax. This was not some minor one-off rumour; it was a dominant feature in most of the news articles on the case for a good 5 or 6 days leading up to the 19th. And then...(silence)

64.48.78.8 (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This story originated with the Daily Mail, and like many things in the Mail, has no basis in fact. That is the only "source" that claimed there would be an interview, and it is entirely unreliable. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source on that first sentence?

Here is the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1020279/Sex-dungeon-victim-dramatic-TV-interview-24-year-ordeal.html

Since the interview obviously didn't happen, the story can be completely dismissed, and one unreliable source's speculation about it is hardly encyclopaedic. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to accept it, but as your second sentence is clearly wrong, the burden must be on you (and others above) to prove the other hundreds of sources/articles all derive back to the Mail.

I can only find ONE reference to the interview -- hoax, cancelled, or otherwise -- after the 19th:

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/05/20/50130.html

Is this the best we've got to dismiss a mountain of claims to the contrary?

64.48.78.8 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you, as the person wanting something added to back up your statements, for example, that "these reports were widespread, frequent, and NEVER RETRACTED", that there were "hundreds (thousands) of letters to various editors expressing the same confusion as I had?" (please show us all of them), "actual channel listings for several countries" etc. etc. In fact, if you search Google News for Elizbeth Fritzl interview there is hardly anything. What actually happened was that the the Daily Mail published totally false speculation that there would be an interview, which was picked up in a few places (and the rumour spread on Yahoo boards etc.). But there is nothing encyclopaedic about it. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This article definitely does not need a section on hoaxes, user 64.48.78.8, and not even one about abstruse press stories. I'm getting tired of chasing the origin of what's printed in a range of newspapers that shall remain unnamed. In the last few days, there were (English language) articles saying that the grandchildren will be returning to school in Austria after the summer holidays; that the whole family will start a new life in the UK (of all places - it's so easy to start a new life in a new country with a new language!); that they will all get new identities (yes, again!), although I suspect that what they are getting are ID papers since 3 persons never had any, not even birth certificates, and the 4th person does not have up to date ID papers, and the Austrian authorities DID mention this quite a few times, adding that it was a technicality that needed to be done.--KathaLu (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"they were in ever-increasing detail, including actual channel listings for several countries"- that's funny :-). I particularly love the "ever increasing detail", lol. For those of you who can speak the lingo, here's an article from today from Lower Austria Skrupellose Paparazzi und dubiose Falschmeldungen machen den Inzestopfern ein normales Leben unmöglich "Völliger Schwachsinn" translates as "complete nonsense" in polite company, btw. And it's about paparazzis and dubious and false news reports.--KathaLu (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

QUOTE: "A television appearance by Austrian incest victim Elisabeth Fritzl, 42, was 'not planned' at present, Fritzl's lawyer said Sunday, thereby contradicting a report in the tabloid Oesterreich (Austria). The newspaper reported Sunday that Fritzl [...] would possibly appear on the ORF channel as soon as May 26. Fritzl's lawyer, Christoph Herbst, told APA news agency that 'nothing of the kind was planned' at the moment. A television appearance 'would not happen for the time being' in any case, he said." THIS HAS BEEN ON THE NET SINCE AT LEAST Sun, 18 May 2008 18:16:03 GMT, and still is! DUH. And if I could find it you could have found it, too.--KathaLu (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oesterreich magazine (http://www.oe24.at) published their Mother of all Elisabeth Fritzl TV Rumour Stories on Sunday 18 May and Elisabeth Fritzl's lawyer Dr Christoph Herbst told the Austrian news agency APA that very same Sunday that there were no plans for such a TV interview.--KathaLu (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I give up. You obviously all speak German, and I am at a disadvantage because I am only seeing the English reports. However, please don't misquote me! For ex, "...that there were "hundreds (thousands) of letters to various editors expressing the same confusion as I had?" (please show us all of them)" -- I said that there *WOULD* be such letters if the interview was either cancelled or a hoax! So harry should be asking HIMSELF to show all those many many letters indicating that it was; I am questioning their ABSENSE.

Likewise, I didn't want a source for the Daily Mail (duh), I wanted a source for your assertion that that was the SOURCE of all other versions. For starters, the Oesterreich one cited above -- are they in the habit of back-translating reports on the case from the UK press?

Eh? In this case, Oe24.at was the original source. They were picked up the same day or next day by the Mail and others. Spiegel and other large German language press do pick up stories from the Mail and even the Sun, at least in their online version. They did in this case, then corrected their stories later. I've given extensive examples of how news article content gets picked up across (language or geographical) borders, repeatedly and in both directions, and how the original source quote gets lost along the process. See archives. --KathaLu (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And, yes, I know of the lawyer and the ORF representative poo-pooing the interview on the 17th and 18th, but seeing as a FRESH ROUND of articles came out on the 19th insisting it was back ON, they are a bit irrelevant. Show me one source AFTER the 20th explaining why the much-advertised event didn't take place. Or after the 26th for that matter!

It wasn't a fresh round - the "story" was published in an Austrian paper on the 18th, and then it meandered through other papers further away. They took it up on the 19th, the 20th and so on, without checking newer up to date information. Stuff pops up as "news" up to 2 weeks later.--KathaLu (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As to the channels, how's this? http://www.tbivision.com/article.php?category=4&article=423

So what are all those, chopped liver?

What do you mean? RDF seals deals for Fritzl doc Secrets of the Cellar is a documentary that was broadcast a few days ago by Channel 4 in the UK. It will soon reach a TV station near you. The article is right, there is a huge interest, this is a hot deal, this story makes money and brings more than butter on the bread for many people.--KathaLu (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is an unreliable site, how about some SOURCES to that effect?! You can't dismiss the site as unreliable based on your "gut" saying the info is incorrect. My "gut" would have dismissed the entire cased from the gitgo, were it not for a convergence of media reports matching each other to a high degree. That is what news IS.

First, Wikipedia is not a source for news. Second, nothing gets into the Wikipedia article on the basis of "gut" feelings. My gut tells me sometimes to check out a story and I then go and find as many sources as possible, ideally tracing the info down to the original source, which, in this case, is often an Austrian lawyer, an Austrian hospital doctor, an Austrian police officer, an Austrian local governor, an Austrian newspaper, or an Austrian press release. It can also be the Sun, the Mail, the Times, the Spiegel - each of these 4 newspapers can have the correct factual information or a piece of wrong information.--KathaLu (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, though, I only have English sources at my disposal. So if Harry et al wish to assert that the English reporting has been for the most part fantastical, I will accept that persons not conversant in German should not follow this story.

64.48.78.27 (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Err, how about the [people who dont understand German should trust those who do, your exclusivist statement is silly. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

His or her statement that "all info in the article derived from English-language sources should be stricken" is silly, of course. It should be rephrased to "don't go off in a huff if you believed something you read in the papers or online that turned out to be wrong".--KathaLu (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm agreeing with you -- all info in the article derived from English-language sources should be stricken. My hat's off to Harry and others here who can follow the story in its original sources. 64.48.78.27 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Today, there is a story in the Times by Bojan Pancevski, Vienna, saying that "Austrian authorities have initiated legal procedures to give new identities to Josef Fritzl's entire family after the family's decision to turn down lucrative offers for media interviews". YESTERDAY, in the article from the Austrian Kurier (see link above), both the family's lawyer Herbst and the local governor Lenze were verbatim quoted, saying that they don't know where these stories about new identities come from, they are total rubbish, it has not been discussed with the family, both issues (new identity and interviews) are not pressing issues for the family right now. This does not spell well for the future, since Pancevski is one of the journos who have themselves managed to get a lucrative deal with a publisher to write the ultimate book about the Fritzl family. It's my impression that there is little news at the moment, the Austrian press, perhaps also the German press, are keeping more in line with legal privacy restrictions and perhaps there is a better feedback mechanism - if THEY print rubbish, it's detected earlier because of the language and geographical closeness - while the non-German language journalists and papers get away with it and can feed whatever story to editors and readers. Panjevski may have an interest to keep the story hot until his book is in the shops. The family lawyer Herbst, btw, is quoted in the same Kurier article as saying that rumours that any future interview or book deal or similar were excluded, aren't true either. It is just not a pressing matter FOR THE FAMILY AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.--KathaLu (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. If I am still sufficiently enraged this evening when I have more time I think I will compose a letter to the Times ;-).--KathaLu (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Add my name when you do!

PS: I wasn't in any huff. Just frustrated with comments like "Mail is a tabloid; info must be wrong" and "Oesterreich is a tabloid; info must be wrong". This LAST post of yours, otoh, is a goldmine of info. May I conclude that Kurier is on the "acceptable" list?

BTW, are UK papers as a whole unreliable? This story has not made a RIPPLE in the US, do we really have higher journalistic standards?!

Hard to believe!

64.48.78.16 (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE will answer all your questions. Perhaps you should read that and other policies before you comment. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, nobody and everybody is on the "acceptable" list. Interesting subject, isn't it? I may come back to it when I have more time. The Wiki article needs more work; I don't want to come across as critical of UK papers, I actually get most of my daily news from them, lol, and that's by choice.--KathaLu (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

> Nope, nobody and everybody is on the "acceptable" list

Tell it to Harry! It's only b/c he and others dismiss Daily Mail out of hand -- and the dozens/hundreds of others aping their story -- that we're in this discussion!!

BTW, many many "sources" (I am now wont to use the term) claimed "Secrets of the Cellar" (or "Secrets of the Austrian Cellar") was to be the name of the interview package. Not some prior documentary.

I'll take your word for it that they were incorrect. 64.48.78.1 (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policy (especially WP:SOURCE as I asked you to do) before commenting further. It is not me that is dismissing the Daily Mail as generally unreliable, it is Wikipedia policy. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that somebody removed the placeholder section about the media interest today. I don't know how extraordinary the behaviour of the press is in this case, and perhaps they don't report much about themselves anyway. Here are two articles from the Guardian: Fritzl cellar case: Amstetten tires of British photographers of 29 May and Paparazzi swarm around Fritzl family of May 19 2008. Is it worth it / is it appropriate to put a short summary into the Wiki article? Any thoughts?--KathaLu (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The documentary "Secret of the Cellar" was aired on the UK station Channel 4 on 21 May, and you can watch clips on their website. You don't have to take my word for anything, but please search information more carefully before you make unfounded claims here. Either the interview was in it, then there was obviously no "cover up", or it wasn't in it, then obviously your "many many sources" were talking BS. But no matter what, all members of the Fritzl family have a right to privacy. None of them has to talk to the press, have their picture published, have to reveal details about their life past, present or future. It's not a cover up, it's their right. --KathaLu (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I note with great interest that the name of the "minor royal" (actually less minor than I originally thought) who is currently involved in a blackmail case is not only successfully kept out of the British press, but that the information about the person's involvement in the case is also kept out of the person's Wikipedia page on BLP grounds, despite being widely published on the net and in non-UK media.--KathaLu (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC).

Could you give us a hint? I haven't seen any reports whatsoever about royals attached to this case. Officials in Amstetten and a coupla politicians in Vienna, that's about it.

Is it being kept out of the Austrian press as well?

64.48.78.6 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Austria. Please don't jump to conclusions. Please study WP:BLP carefully, and also have a look at the archives of this Talk Page. We discussed BLP issues earlier on. During the discussion, we referred to other cases where BLP issues played a role. My above comment was simply another BLP example.--KathaLu (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We are definitely in a news lull. Google News washes recycled news into my mailbox every day. An article in the NÖN, a Lower Austrian local paper, was entitled "New identities?" today; it started off with the family lawyer's statement from last week where he said that it was total rubbish and much too early to even discuss the issue and ended with quotes of local governor Lenze from about a month ago where he said that 'we have to familiarize ourselves with the thought that we have to arrange for a name change". It's verbatim what he said a month or so ago, straight after the release of the family from the cellar, but the writer of the article doesn't mention that fact and gives the impression as if he said it right now. Same thing about ending Kerstin's artificial coma. Doctors have said repeatedly that it may take weeks, depending on how she reacts to the gradual withdrawal of the drugs but newspapers can't wait that long so we get news about her having come out of the coma about every two days or so from one or the other paper around the globe.--KathaLu (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Names

I bring this subject up again as there was no reaction last time: there's something "not neutral" about the fact that Josef Fritzl is referred to as Fritzl, while other persons are referred to be their first names. Either he is referred to as Josef throughout, or Elisabeth Fritzl is also referred to as Fritzl, not as Elisabeth. The same applies for Rosemarie Fritzl. It's either Thatcher, Blair, and Brown, or Margaret, Tony, and Gordon, surely?--KathaLu (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is simply accepted style, WP:MOS, the main perpetrator, in this article, "Josef Fritzl" is mentioned once, thereafter, it's "Fritzl". Victims are known by their first names only, as psychologically it creates a mood of empathy between the reader and the victim. Quoted officials are always named in full. This is the accepted writing style and it cannot be arbitrarily changed. Tovojolo (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I take note of what you say. I could not find anything in WP:MOS. It is certainly accepted style in current news reporting but then, depending on the newspaper, it's also accepted style to refer to "sex monster" and "sex slave".--KathaLu (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

> Either he is referred to as Josef throughout, or Elisabeth Fritzl is also referred to as Fritzl, not as Elisabeth.

Huh? One sentence back you said the opposite! You mean "either he SHOULD BE...yadda yadda yadda"??

Doesn't make sense as you have it.

I meant: in a paragraph, for example, that speaks exclusively of only one of the two people sharing the same surname, it would be more neutral style to use the full name first and then the surname only. If the paragraph refers to the two people in question, it is obviously not possible to use only surnames for both, as it would be unclear who is meant. Another way of making the text more neutral would be an approach that I have seen in another wiki language version where more use is made of terms like "the suspect", "the accused", or of the family relationships by using "daughter", "father" etc. more frequently (tricky, though, as one person is father and grandfather of the children).--KathaLu (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it's not a "victim" thing or an "empathy" thing, Tovojolo, it's a "you-can't-have-two-ppl-with-the-same-handle" thing. Once "Fritzl" is taken, they HAVE to shift to either first names or full names for all other Fritzls. It is more a matter of logical necessity than of "writing style".

If the perpetrator did NOT share her surname, you can rest assured many/most of the reports would be calling Elizabeth simply "Fritzl". Cf. Natalie Kampusch -- frequently refered to as "Kampusch", incl in her Wiki entry, and in many of the reports on this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.48.78.6 (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 64.48.78.6 (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, agree; as it's written, the article is confusing. The article should at the very least refer to "Mr. Fritzl" throughout, rather than "Fritzl." Romanempire (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just using the surname for everyone would be unworkable, since all the main people in the case share the same surname. Logically, in this case, I suppose everyone ought to be referred to by their full name (given name and surname) every time, but that would seem unnatural too, particularly (though perhaps illogically) in the case of the young children. It seems to me that the way it is now is reasonable, although Josef Fritzl could be called "Mr Fritzl" and it would still read quite naturally. Ondewelle (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember this is a BLP

Can I suggest we just ignore the anons who are clearly here just to stir the pot. Any comments that they make that have BLP implications should simply be removed without comment. Other silly conspiracy theories and other nonsense is best not responded to at all. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree but the problem is that one man's BLP implications are another man's censorship. I personally try not to react to conspiracy theories and similar abstruse stuff in any way at all. However, it is not always immediately obvious to me when TP comments are not made in good faith but with ulterior motive.--KathaLu (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ripping out content w/o comment is not proper Wikipedia behavior. (BTW, doubly so on the talk page) 72.40.45.79 (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is on a BLP. Please read WP:BLP. Any content that contravenes WP:BLP should immediately be removed, whether on the article or the talk page. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

News lull

Another article, this time in the Telegraph, essentially putting together bits and pieces from earlier articles. First of all, Natascha Kampusch wildly speculating about Josef Fritzl's relationship with his mother and drawing parallels to her kidnapper Priklopil's relationship with is mother, based exclusively on the few Fritzl comments in the text published by Fritzl's lawyer and somewhat taken out of context. Then some recent comments by prosecutor spokesman Sedlacek, followed by one of the much older, off the cuff comments by police spokesman Polzer, again giving the impression as if he said it yesterday. Some news about the possible date for the trial: autumn or end of the year, and possibly behind closed doors.--KathaLu (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I reverted a recent edit ("he could have killed them"), as it was definitely quoted in the wrong context. I am not even certain that Josef Fritzl actually said it although he is now widely quoted as having said it. Was this originally an off the cuff comment by either his lawyer Mayer or police officer Polzer?--KathaLu (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The "I could have killed them all and nobody would have found out" quote first appeared in the Bild tabloid on 7 May; Fritzl is supposed to have said it in prison to his lawyer Mayer, "according to our information", wrote Bild. It was taken up, among many others, by the Sueddeutsche, who added that they were not able to contact the lawyer to give them a statement concerning this quote. I therefore conclude that this must be regarded as an unreliable quote for the time being. Besides, there are enough quotes in the Wiki article. The quotes in the section "Fritzl's comments" are taken exclusively from the lawyer endorsed publication in the News magazine, and any modification of the section should be based on this published News article, as translated by the referenced source.--KathaLu (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be of relevance for the Wiki article: to date, police have not yet interviewed any of the 4 members of the Fritzl family who had been kept imprisoned, apart from the initial 2 hour interview of Elisabeth Fritzl which led to the discovery of the crimes. According to their lawyer Herbst, their doctors and therapists will decide if and when they are fit to be questioned by police. Trial may take place in autumn but no date set yet; in Austria, a suspect can be kept in pre-trial confinement for up to two years. Josef Fritzl didn't receive 200 love letters, as published by the Sun recently, but only about 20 letters, according to prison chief Mörwald, and they contained mainly threats. Prosecution spokesman Sedlacek of the prosecutor's office in St Pölten said a few days ago that there is no hard evidence that Josef Fritzl was involved in other crimes, so perhaps the section about Pocher needs to be toned down.--KathaLu (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This subject is not mentioned much in non-Austrian media, probably because they feel it does not concern them, as it is unlikely the Austrian media law apply to what they publish: a few weeks ago, the Fritzl family lawyer Christoph Herbst had announced that he was considering legal steps against newspapers (in relation to the way they reported about the case). Yesterday he told the Austrian press agency APA that he had approached "several media" and was trying to find an amicable solution without the involvement of a court. If this was not possible he would consider legal proceedings. Unlike during the first weeks, when the name "Fritzl" was used extensively, Austrian print media now seem to refer only to "Josef F." or "Elisabeth F." (that's what it's looks like in Google news in any case).--KathaLu (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotations in indirect speech form

Moncrief, the section "Fritzl's comments" is based on a published version of direct quotations, authorized by his lawyer R. Mayer. IMO, it should not be tampered with. A translated version of the quotations is referenced in the Wiki article (Guardian article). Excerpts from the original (again referenced!) publication in Austria may no longer be available online but were re-published in other German language media that are still available online. Google Fritzl and Nazizeit, and with enough patience you will find his direct quotations in German. I did. I am not a native speaker and don't know how to put direct quotations correctly into indirect speech in English. IMO, in English, tenses often do not allow the same clear distinction between indirect speech and the writer stating something as fact that some other languages, like German, do. However, the sentence in question starts with "he suggested", so everything that follows is what he said and the way he said it (and correctly translated into English). Although it is of little importance overall, he did not say "when I was a child", he did say "when I grew up". Do not revert this again.--KathaLu (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS:I am rambling here, lol, about the never ending fascination of the Nazis and their 12-year regime (or rather 7-year regime in Austria), especially in Britain. While "Nazizeit" is correctly translated as "Nazi era", the connotations are different, I believe. I think he said that he grew up in the Nazi era, like some else would say "I grew up in the Victorian age" or "I grew up in the 60s", or "I grew in those days when young people were not allowed as much freedom as they do today". It's telling that the Guardian editor chose to subtitle this quotation as "On the Nazis" while a subtitle like "On discipline" would have been more accurate and honest.--KathaLu (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kerstin's medical condition?

Are there any details on the medical condition that caused the multiple organ failure of Kerstin? Was it related to the incarceration in any way? - 222.154.238.36 (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The hospital's latest press release (11 June) describes her earlier condition as "suffering from the effects of a lack of oxygen caused by convulsions". I don't know what they said in their press conference but would not be surprised if they will not release more details than this about a private living person's medical conditions.--KathaLu (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Police had no shame ...

... is the title of an article in the Wiener Zeitung. There is currently a flurry of articles in the Austrian press (unfortunately not in English) about the Parlamentary inquest about the case in connection with the protection of victims and the protection of privacy in the media. Elisabeth F.'s lawyer Eva Plaz spoke during the Parlamentary hearing. She claimed that a number of people used the family to "aggrandize themselves in the public eye" and that they revealed information about the family and the case, which they knew only due to their position in police, local goverment and prosecution, in order to get favourable reporting. She said that nearly everything that Elisabeth F. told the police during her first and only interview could be read in one or the other media, except one sentence, which said: "I request that no content whatsoever of what I say may be transmitted to any media of any kind". --KathaLu (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Imprisoned mother as well

New reports show that he imprisoned his mother for 20 years until 1980 when she died. Could this be included here at all? Katana Geldar 09:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Go head and write it up.... Dinkytown (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You put it nicely: "news reports" show it indeed, in this case "news.ninemsn.com.au" from Australia. I cannot find a single reference in a Austrian/German language news source that says "20 years". The best I can find in relation to the psychological report which has not been published, only supposedly leaked to an Austrian tabloid, is a reference to "several years". Not even the German tabloid Bild knows anything about 20 years of his mother being locked away, and they know everything and more. Actually, Bild writes only that she was "practically incarcerated", whatever that means. They do say that he claims to have bricked up the window in his mother's room. I edited the article accordingly.KathaLu (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)