(1)  My motivation in adding this is not a matter for discussion.  The only thing which needs to be discussed here is whether or not it's an appropriate and supportable addition.  A large part of the reason adding a link to this article is such a bone of contention in the Caylee Anthony article is because editors there appear to have difficulty separating how they feel from what is objectively supportable.  (2) No "back door" is necessary.  It is a perfectly acceptable addition to the Caylee Anthony article, and would not even be slightly controversial if the subject was not obscured by emotional hysterics.  (3) A reliable source is not required for something to be added to the "See Also" section.  No claim is being made except that the article being referenced in the See Also appendix has some relationship with the article and may be of interest to those interested in the article.  This point has been repeatedly stated and restated in discussion on the Caylee Anthony discussion page.  (4) By posting here you are making discussion even more difficult than it already is.  As you can clearly see here, a discussion has been initated at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.  By dragging it here too, you are forking discussion which needs to be centralized where all stakeholders can participate.