Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Judges' Report

The line "while a shoeprint in a bedroom was made by Knox" is factually incorrect. The cited article talks about a footprint, not a shoeprint. I made a change to match what the referenced article actually said, and it was reverted claiming that other sources back up the original text. Sorry, but that kind of claim is out of line for Wikipedia. If other sources are needed to back up a statement, find them and reference. them. Footwarrior (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The line about "bloody footprints" is even more preposterous. Perhaps they should read the WP:PS article by former FBI agent Steve Moore, "The Luminol Lies." PhanuelB (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, I'm not sure what you mean by constantly referencing "Steve Moore" ... this person appears to be referenced in no other place on the Internet outside of one advocacy site (IJIP) ... does this person have a website of his own? Has any of his work been independently fact-checked and vetted? Has any of his work been subject to cross-examination, peer-review or presented under oath? How is he a "former FBI agent" - was he terminated, retired or did he leave voluntarily? Unless this can be traced back to a WP:RS, "Steve Moore" should be considered as a self-published source. Jonathan (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, please can you try to stay on topic. The article you are referring to is not an RS and there is no reason to bring it up. --FormerIP (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this Google search might answer a few questions on that front. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It took you that long to find out? :) But seriously, even so I figured out this and other likely "connection", Phanuel has and should be given the right to edit this page like everyone else. If he doesn't follow the rules he'll have to accept the consequences (like everybody else).TMCk (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The line "The panel of judges rejected some of the more lurid prosecution claims, especially those based on Knox's behaviour, such as her cart-wheeling in the police station in the days after the murder." is in the reference, but it's proceeded by "BBC Rome correspondent Duncan Kennedy said this suggested". In an encyclopedia we should report this as an opinion and give the source instead of implying it's a fact. Especially considering that the Report does include some rather lurid claims. For example on page 393 of the Massei Report it's claimed that AK and RS participated in the murder due to the effects of smoking hashish, reading lurid comic books and watching sexually explicit movies. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you are right on this. Perhaps the line should be removed althogether, though, rather than attributing (unless a better source can be found. I'm sure Duncan Kennedy is a fine BBC correspondent, but it is not clear that his view is notable enough to inlcude. --FormerIP (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed that statement and added information about AK and RS's motive from the report. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I took out from that the part about the drugs and the violent media. Although this is mentioned, it is appears to me mentioned very briefly and speculatively in a 400-odd page report, whereas the text you inserted seems to indicate that the crime may have been "caused" by the drugs and media. The report acutally says "questa Corte no può ipotizzare che tale scelta di male iniziò con il consumo di sostanze stupefacenti che si era verificato anche quella sera" ("This court cannot assume that this terrible choice (ie the choice to participate in the crime)was provoked by the use of mind-altering substances that evening"). He goes on to talk about evidence that cannabis can cause lowering of inhibition and changes to understanding and perception and that given this, combined with Sollecito's interest in violent material, "la prospettiva di aiutare Rudi nel proposito di soggiogare Meredith per abusnarne sessualmente, poteva apparire come un eccitante particolare" ("the prospect of helping Rudi subdue Meredith in order to sexually abuse her might have seemed particularly arousing"). But note the word "might". This isn't a finding of fact or a key part of the report. What comes next is more significant: "Che tale partecipazione, attiva e violenta, abbia coinvolto anche gli attuali imputati conconrso con Rudi deriva da quanto se è osservato parlando delle lesione subite da Meredith dell'esito delle indagini genetiche, dalle impronte di piede nudo rinvenute in varie parti della casa" ("That this active and violent participation implicates these defendants along with Rudi comes from what is observed in terms of the injury suffered by Meredith, the results of genetic investigations and the bare footprints found in various parts of the residence"). --FormerIP (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A rough google translation of the section I referred to:

The effects of drugs such as those used by Amanda and Raffaele like hashish and marijuana, was heard prof. Cut which, while underlining the strong inter-subject variability (p. 211, ud. 07/17/2009) stated that the use of these substances affects cognitive ability and determines the changes in perception (p. 201 and 207) and understanding of the situation (p. 218). In turn prof.Cingolani which together with prof. Umani Ronchi and Professor in April was also concerned with the toxicity (see expert report filed on 04/15/2008 pagg.26 et seq), answering the question which asked whether the use of drugs lowers inhibitions replied: "This is beyond doubt" (p. 163 ud. of 19/09/2009) while correlating this effect to the habits of the person taking drugs. Friends Raffaele Sollecito have also reported that these substances had a calming effect and numbness.

It is therefore to be expected that, not foreign consumption of drugs and the effects thereof, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito participated actively in the criminal Rudi aimed at overcoming the resistance of Meredith, to subdue the will and thus allow for Rudi vent their lustful impulses, and this is by believing that it happened because, in those who did not disdain the use of drugs (Amanda said that night, before "making love" had consumed drugs), watching movies and reading comic books in which sexuality is accompanied by violence and situations of fear and is independent of those moved by the encounter each other and feeling free (see the comics seized Raffaele Sollecito and the statements on watching films that had attracted the 'attention of educators attended the College ONAOSI Raffaele Sollecito), the prospect of help in regard to subdue Rudi Meredith for sexual abuse, might seem like a particularly exciting that, while not expected, was experienced.

A motive, then, that violent sexual erotic nature, originated by the choice of evil wrought by Rudi, found the active collaboration of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The same section in the original Italian:

Sugli effetti di sostanze stupefacenti del tipo di quelle usate da Amanda e da Raffaele quali hashish e marijuana, è stato sentito il prof. Tagliartela il quale, pur sottolineando la forte variabilità soggettiva (pag. 211, ud. 17.7.2009) ha precisato che l'uso di tali sostanze influisce negativamente sulla capacità cognitiva e determina delle alterazioni della percezione (pag. 201 e 207) e della capacità di comprensione della situazione (pag. 218). A sua volta il prof.Cingolani che insieme al prof. Umani Ronchi ed alla prof.ssa Aprile si era anche occupato dell'aspetto tossicologico (v. relazione peritale depositata il 15.4.2008 pagg.26 e seguenti), rispondendo a domanda con la quale gli si chiedeva se l'uso di stupefacenti abbassa i freni inibitori rispondeva: "Questo è fuori dubbio" (pag. 163 ud. del 19.9.2009) pur correlando tale effetto alle abitudini della persona all'assunzione di sostanze stupefacenti. Gli amici di Raffaele Sollecito hanno inoltre riferito che tali sostanze avevano un effetto rilassante e di intontimento.

Pertanto è da ritenere che, non estraneo il consumo di sostanze stupefacenti e gli effetti dello stesso, Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito parteciparono attivamente all'azione delittuosa di Rudi finalizzata a vincere la resistenza di Meredith, a soggiogarne la volontà e consentire così a Rudi di sfogare i propri impulsi lussuriosi; e questo è da ritenere che avvenne perché, in chi non disdegnava l'uso di droga (Amanda ha dichiarato che quella sera, prima di "fare l'amore" avevano consumato droga), la visione di film e la lettura di fumetti nei quali la sessualità si accompagna alla violenza ed a situazioni di paura e prescinde dall'incontro di persone mosse dal reciproco e libero sentimento (v. i fumetti sequestrati a Raffaele Sollecito e le dichiarazioni sulla visione di film che avevano attirato l'attenzione degli educatori del Collegio ONAOSI frequentato da Raffaele Sollecito), la prospettiva di aiutare Rudi nel proposito di soggiogare Meredith per abusarne sessualmente, poteva apparire come un eccitante particolare che, pur non previsto, andava sperimentato.

Un movente, quindi, di natura erotico sessuale violento che, originatosi dalla scelta di male operata da Rudi, trovò la collaborazione attiva di Amanda Knox e di Raffaele Sollecito.

This appears to be the only place in the report where a motive is given for AK and RS participating in the crime. Given that the judges report is sometimes called a motivations report, we should include the motive as stated. Even if it is a bit lurid and doesn't make a lot of sense. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel it is important to inlcude reference to a motive (although I am not sure I agree that it necessarily is because, as I said above, I think this is (valid) speculation on the part of the judge, not a finding of fact ("poteva"="might")) then surely the motive described here is sexual sadism, not drugs and comics per se. The judge is only saying that drugs may have influenced the behaviour of the defendants, and he mentions comics only in passing, without reference to any expert testimony.

The relevant bit is:

Un movente, quindi, di natura erotico sessuale violento che, originatosi dalla scelta di male operata da Rudi, trovò la collaborazione attiva di Amanda Knox e di Raffaele Sollecito.

A motive, then, violent and sexual in nature which, originating with the wicked choice made by Guede, found the active collaboration of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

PS apologies it took me a while to type my previous talk comment - this was because of the Italiano. --FormerIP (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Judges’ reports as reliable sources

FormerIP wrote: ...If you think the Massei and Michelli reports are unreliable, please start a new section to discuss that.

I’m glad someone brought that up. I was already drafting a comment to bring it up myself. I think we need to be very careful how the judges’ reports are used as references. Certainly, as Bluewave noted, they are useful and reliable as a record of the decision-making process which the judges adopted. However, we must remember the reports are only the CONCLUSION of the judges/court, and not everything in them can be claimed as irrefutable fact. As an example, Judge Micheli’s report is cited to support the statement [Events surrounding the murder] Kercher was murdered in the apartment at around 11 pm.[12] But I know there is controversy as to the time of death. There’s a report that forensic scientists have said it could have been anywhere from 9:00 pm to 4:00 am which could have a major impact on alibis, etc. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3282588.ece

Since the judges’ reports support the court’s position (that Knox and Sollecito are guilty), they are certainly biased and (on controversial issues, at least) I see them as the equivalent of an “advocacy site” for the court/prosecution. Kermugin (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, really; the judges' report isn't pushing a particular POV, it's merely reporting their findings. As long as the text makes it clear that " according to the judges' report, X event happened as follows" as opposed to "X event happened as follows", then there isn't an issue there. Saying that "the conclusion of the court was that X happened" isn't biased. Now the court's findings are clearly notable, and may need to be included, but similarly we can't allow random non-notable opinion, as advocated by other editors above, to be included. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the conclusions of the court are not always all there is to say on the matter. You say there is controversy about the time of death, Kermugin. Maybe there is, but I've not heard of this previously. I'd suggest that what we have in this case is a newspaper providing running commentary at a particular point in the investigation. Is there some particular reason why this might be important? AFAIK, the time of death has not been raised as an issue either in the trial or in any media report. It may have a major impact on alibis, but this is your OR unless a reliable source has talked about this. --FormerIP (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don’t have the exact reference now but I think I remember reading somewhere a charge that the prosecution revised their estimated time of death to fit their theory and their witnesses’ statements (i.e. adjusting the "evidence" to fit a theory rather than finding a theory to fit the evidence). Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. I was just using that as an example. My point is that some things in the judges’ reports may be contentious and shouldn’t be treated as facts. As Black Kite said, saying that "the conclusion of the court was that X happened" is not biased. But treating a conclusion of the court (which could be incorrect) as if it was an indisputable fact is a problem. If a judge’s conclusion is disputed, we should note that it is a conclusion, not a fact. In the example I cited, if the time of death is at issue (I’ll have to look for a source on that) we should add the caveat. Kermugin (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it would have to be disputed widely and reliably, not just by any random source on the Internet, or it probably wouldn't be worth a mention. Anyone, after all, can "dispute" something. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

All findings, of all courts everywhere could be incorrect in terms of absolute truth. "The finding of the court was X" is a verifiable fact

"The finding of the court was X" does not necessarily mean that X is the absolute truth.
Criminal trials in may countries typically have a prosecution and a defence. These two teams of lawyers work by presenting facts, theories, evidence, and statements. They also dispute and attempt to discredit the facts, theories, evidence and statements presented by the other side. Their job is not to establish absolute truth. Their job is simply to win the case, and this his how they do it.
If the court finds that a person is guilty this does not mean that a document recording this fact is biased against the accused. That's ludicrous.
We do not need access to all of the trial documents to write this article.
We do not need to discuss the "quality of the evidence" in this article because we are not lawyers and we are not trying the case.   pablo_hablo. 10:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Kermugin: I would agree that if it can be shown that there is a significant disupte over the time of death, then it may be approporiate to note that in that article, but that would need to be more than a newspaper reporting something that is not consistent - if that's all we have, then it seems obvious to me that, barring a conspiracy theory, the court report is more likely to be correct. --FormerIP (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources report that there is a significant dispute over whether this was a kangaroo court or not. WP:NPOV requires that this be discussed. It is a "fact about an opinion" and the central theme of virtually every secondary source that has written about this case. WP:BLP does raise questions about the use of the Micheli/Massei reports as reliable sources (they aren't anyway) but that is not an issue here. The Judge's reports are not reliable sources because a primary theme of all secondary sources that cover this case is the quality of justice in the case. The reports -- to use an analogy -- are specimens, not scholars.

Yesterday one of the CBS documentaries that has been banned from this article was nominated for an Emmy Award. The POV of this documentary and virtually all of the others is diabolically opposed to the POV of this article. The POV of this article must be NPOV and that must be a proportional representation of what reliable sources are saying. Here are some significant words from that documentary. It is on topic because it speaks to the issue of whether the Judge's reports are reliable sources.

Paul Ciolino:

“this is a lynching… this is a lynching that’s happening right now in modern day Europe and it’s happening to an American girl who has no business being charged with anything."

“I’ll probably get indicted in Italy for saying this. I don’t care. He[Mignini] is ruining the lives of two kids who have done nothing.”

Peter Van Sant:

“The case with tabloid claims of drugs, kinky sex, and even satanic rituals is a murder mystery sensation in Europe.”

“but it did match this man 22 year old Rudy Guede, a local thief known to carry a knife”

“We have much more on this hour that I really want you to watch and at the end of it I promise you're going to want to send in the 82nd Airborne Division over to Italy to get this girl out of jail.”

Doug Preston:

“You cannot believe the hysteria, the anger against Amanda Knox”

“this is a case based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories and that’s it.”

"I don’t think so." when asked if AK could receive a fair trial.

“he [Mignini] interrogated me. He accused me of committing horrendous crimes including being an accessory to murder…. I’m a professional journalist; I have a very good memory; I know what happened in that interrogation.”

Nathan Abraham (primary source only)

“People knew who Rudy was.. we found out he tried to rob one of our bar tenders where he went to his house had a little scuffle with a knife… he was one of those people who you knew him but you stayed a little far away from him.”PhanuelB (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, the opinions that you quote contain a lot of emotion but very little substance. Taking, for example, your assertion that the trial of AK/RS has been reliably reported as a "kangaroo court": if I understand the term correctly, that would mean that the verdict was predetermined and was not based on the evidence presented. That is a very serious allegation (much more so than the view that the court made a mistake, for example) and would have to be based on some supporting facts, not emotion. Have any of the sources that you mentioned put forward evidence that the court had, in fact, prejudged the case? For example, did one of the judges comment on the guilt of the defendants before the trial had been held? Or is there evidence that the judges were corrupt? If such evidence exists, it is relevant to the article, but if the sources are making accusations against the court without this kind of supporting evidence, then I would question whether they are reliable sources! Bluewave (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Making a claim that the court was biased or predetermined would of course be a WP:BLP violation - if not libel - as it would allege (probably criminal) misconduct against those involved. In no way could that be included, especially based on non-neutral sources such as those above. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The allegations are being made by numerous reliable sourcesWP:RS.PhanuelB (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Who? The ones listed above don't appear to be in the slightest reliable, judging by their tone. In no way would we support any sort of conspiracy theory based on such claims, especially, as I said, if they alleged some sort of criminal activity with no proof. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Who? This CBS documentary was just nominated for an Emmy Award. All these people showed up neutral and came away breathing fire. CNN Larry King Live had the same experience. They selected neutral people, they looked at the case, and they're breathing fire. Tim Egan is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist. He's breathing fire also. Same for Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper. They selected neutral people. Those people came away breathing fire.

What kills me about this is that I'm the one who's complying fully with Wikipedia's requirements. I show up with facts (Rudy's criminal history) and they say "that's synthesis or original research." Fine; then I show up with secondary sources in the form of television documentaries and they say "we report facts, not random opinions." At a certain point this stuff can't be ignored.PhanuelB (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

At a certain point this stuff can't be ignored Correct. It won't be able to be ignored once Knox's Italian counsel actually files charges in an Italian Court ... or once the US State Department protests ... or perhaps once it moves beyond news reports and blogosphere opinions & becomes tangible. Until them, it can be ignored. I won't hold my breath. Jonathan (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The criteria you have created (Italian Lawyer's charges, US State Dep protests) are utterly irrelevant to Wikpedia's rules of inclusion. Do you really think this CBS television documentary is "blogosphere opinion"?PhanuelB (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

" Do you really think this CBS television documentary is "blogosphere opinion" The CBS documentary you are referring to is a self-publish source; self-funded, self-produced, not subject to peer-review and therefore, a biased source. CBS is not presenting the source, CBS itself IS the source. that's why it is essentially a blogosphere opinion. Jonathan (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm seriously wondering how many times this has to be re-stated before you grasp the concept here, PhanuelB. CBS itself is undoubtedly a reliable source; but CBS aren't saying those things - their documentary happens to contain footage of other people saying those things. Are those people reliable sources? Well, that's the question. Of course the documentary is going to show the most sensationalist quotes it can; it wouldn't be doing its job otherwise. But to give an example using Preston's quote "this is a case based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories" - well, nice quote. Any reliable sources showing evidence that he may be correct? No, thought not. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(NathanWard1234 (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) I have been reading through the discussion and I do not understand how Barbie Nadeau can be considered a reliable source when it comes to blood evidence but a CBS 48 Hours documentary is banned as a reliable source. I guess Black_Kite's explanation is not enough for me.

“Making a claim that the court was biased or predetermined would of course be a WP:BLP violation...” But factually noting such a claim having been made by multiple renowned professional investigators and journalists is simply reporting the truth and is relevant.

“Who? The ones listed above don't appear to be in the slightest reliable, judging by their tone. In no way would we support any sort of conspiracy theory based on such claims...”

I don’t think the “tone” of a source is sufficient to judge its reliability. If it is, we would have to eliminate a large percentage of sources on both sides of the issue. Black Kite is absolutely correct that we can’t support conspiracy theories based on unproven claims. But I see a large difference between supporting a theory and factually noting that a widely-held theory exists and is supported by notable professional investigators, journalists, celebrities, politicians, etc. This case is exceptionally notable because it is fraught with claims of irregularities in the judicial process. The article should not seek to prove these claims. But it would be incomplete and dishonest if it tries to hide or fails to note them. Kermugin (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It does note them, that's the point (see the Media coverage section). But WP:UNDUE means we can't list every quote by every single media commentator that has casr doubt on the trial. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

JSL5871 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC) There is nothing irrelevent about the argument about the crediblity of the investigation, prosecution, or outcome of this case; in face, that argument about the credibility is itself a major part of this story. Whether one chooses to believe it or not, there are a lot of inconsistencies with the method of investigation (enough so that part of Amanda's interrogation was thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court), prosecution (the prosecution admitted that they believed Amanda was guilty early on simply because of her "behavior" , the prosecution DID admit to withholding key evidence against Raffale Sollecito (the bra clasp, halting the trial for a month)and the outcome (it is a fact that the judge took cell phone calls and members of the jury fell asleep during the defense portion of the trial. These are facts. The purpose of Wikipedia is to tell the entire story, not just the part that is convenient. People above are correct -- this is not the forum to debate the trial, but it IS the forum to define the trial. The trial definitely has in consistencies and that needs to be narrated. You don't have to agree to it, but you do have to allow it. If not, it is the editors here who are using Wikipedia as an incorrect venue to be a forum of pro-guilt only.

Oh for goodness sake - it is noted in the article already that some people believe the trial has inconsistencies. The article is not "pro-guilt" or "pro-innocence", it is neutral - something which it definitely wasn't before. The fact that there are two whole sections devoted to media criticism and the support for Knox surely indicates that both "sides" (if that is the correct phrase) are represented here. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

JSL5871 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I see two possibilities here. One is to enable this page to discuss the trial -- all of the trial, all of the discussion, not just a small portion that is conveniently here and the rest removed. The other option is to remove the block of the original Amanda Knox page. There is no reason there cannot be a page dedicated to her (intead of only redirecting here). There are clearly two points of view here: Amanda is guilty, and Amanda is a victim of a bad legal process. They should both be freely discussed and not censored.

NathanWard1234 (talk 04:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)) I agree with JSL5871 with regard to the Amanda Knox page. What is the harm in dedicating a page to Amanda Knox?

Well it's scarcely surprisingthat you would agree; you are JSL5871.  pablo. 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

NathanWard1234 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Pablo, your comment did very little to answer my question. Why did you say that I am JSL5871? I am not JSL5871 and I have no idea why you would make that accusation. I would like an answer to my question. What is the harm in dedicating a page on Wikipedia to Amanda Knox? As far as I know, she has been a major news story for almost 3 years. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Amanda Knox would certainly be independently mentioned in any credible encyclopedia that was detailing this time in history.

JSL5871, you're presenting a false choice here. There is yet a third option, which is to consider the entire "Knox is innocent" crusade as attempting to right a great wrong, and therefore not allowed in Wikipedia. That is why the previous Knox page was redirected. Jonathan (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. As noted previously, many times, there are many outlets on the Internet for people to discuss their conspiracy theories (or even reasonable theories) about how the trial was badly handled. This is not a discussion page, it's not a forum, it's not a blog - it's an encyclopedia, and that is not the place to be hosting such issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to NathanWard1234, the proposal to maintain a separate Amanda Knox page has been discussed fairly recently at AfD. Knox could well have been "major news" to some people, but since her name is presently inextricable from the subject of Meredith Kercher's murder, she merits inclusion on Wikipedia as an aspect of a parent article rather than the subject for a separate page. Until her notability is demonstrated in a capacity external to the murder, the trials and the convictions, a dedicated sub-article is not warranted. SuperMarioMan 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

2nd para of "Events surrounding the murder"

I messed about with this para a bit. Here is the dif: [1].

Previously, it had Kercher being murdered at 11 and a neighbour hearing a scream and footsteps running away. However, I was not able to find a source giving the time of the scream and, as indicated elsewhere in the article, there may have been a time-lapse between the attack on Kercher and her time of death. So I have re-orderd the paragraph to avoid giving the impression that all these things happened at the same time. --FormerIP (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

These statement probably belong in the trail section. In this section the implication is that the time of death is certain and was not contested at trial. The elderly neighbor also didn't report the scream on the night of the murder. She came forward months later with the claim she heard the scream and people running. Her testimony was disputed at trail. A tow truck driver and occupants of a disabled car in the car park across from the cottage were present and did not hear a scream. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that it would be good to have a single section outlining the basic chronology as reported in the sources, rather than having bits of it in diffent sections, which must be hard for anyone reading the article.

I didn't know there was any controversy over the woman who heared the scream. Do you have sources for this? One of the things that makes this article difficult is all the "here is what happened, except maybe it didn't". --FormerIP (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A Better Introduction

Meredith Kercher was a 21 year old British exchange student who was murdered in Perugia, Italy on November 1, 2007. The killing shocked the medieval hill town where thousands of foreign college students come each year to study Italian language and culture. Three people have been convicted in the killing: Amanda Knox, a fellow exchange student and housemate of Kercher’s from the Seattle area; Rudy Guede, a petty criminal originally from the Ivory Coast; and Raffaele Sollecito, the son of a wealthy Italian doctor. The case received widespread media coverage and remains controversial because of questions about whether Knox and Sollecito received a fair trial.

Guede, who was linked to the crime by substantial physical evidence, was convicted in October 2008. The trial of Knox and Sollecito took place between January and December 2009 and was closely watched in both Europe and the United States. By the time of the guilty verdict on December 4, 2009 the trial and the police investigation had come under sharp attack in the United States. Shortly after the verdict which was shown live on US television members of the Washington Press Corp and at least one United States Senator were asking US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if the US government planned to intervene.

Note: TLC documentary says "petty criminal." Nadeau and Gary King book say drug sales so it's OK to use that term here.

Note: Jill Dougherty on CNN 7-Dec-09 "Senior State Department officials tell CNN the US will review the trial but is being cautions about commenting while an appeals process is underway."PhanuelB (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Think this is a decent proposal, but there are one or two things I would take issue with:

Slightly too journalistic in style in a couple of places (eg "shocked the medieval hill town")

"Petty criminal" is obviouslt in issue in other discussions, and even if it is contained in the TLC source, it appears to be contradicted elsewhere.

"Substantial physical evidence" is true of all three killers, so it is misleading to highlight this in the case of Guede.

"Under sharp attack" would quickly get a "who?" tag.

--FormerIP (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I took this out of the current lead:

She was lying partially unclothed under a duvet in her bedroom. There was blood on the floor, bed and walls. Forensic pathologists concluded she had been choked, after which her throat was stabbed, causing fatal bleeding. Her body had 40 bruises and scratches, plus knife wounds on the neck and hands, and there was evidence of sexual assault.

On the basis that those details are contained later in the article and didn't really enhance the lead.

--FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary to describe Sollecito's family as "wealthy" in the first paragraph? The term is rather vague, and furthermore what is its import? However, the last sentence of the first paragraph is a fair assessment. The current lead section would benefit from a few sentences summarising public reaction, but the second paragraph above (which aims for that) has a definite skew which lends prominence to Guede's guilt while omitting the evidence raised against Knox and Sollecito (the subject shifts to focus on reception in the media). Lumumba, as a former detainee, requires a mention, but his name is nowhere to be seen. SuperMarioMan 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article needs a better introduction. The one proposed may need a couple of minor edits but if it sounds a trifle “journalistic”, I think it’s certainly a lot closer to “encyclopedic” than the existing introduction. [Maybe you would want to replace substantial physical evidence with uncontested physical evidence?] And perhaps it should say even more about the controversy.

There have been many tragic and brutal crimes within the past few years (as always). I don’t mean to minimize the tragedy of Meredith Kercher’s murder but most of them are unheard of outside the local area and are not recorded in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. The thing that makes this case internationally notable is the controversy over whether Knox and Sollecito received a fair trial or were unfairly prosecuted without proper cause or evidence. That fact needs to be brought out clearly in the introduction and not relegated to a paragraph toward the end of the article. (As a comparison, the article about The O.J. Simpson murder case brings up doubt about DNA evidence and allegations of police misconduct in the introduction.)

The article must not try to convince the reader that the allegations in the controversy are either right or wrong. But it should give due consideration to the fact the controversy exists so the reader can understand what it’s about and look elsewhere for more information or to engage in debate if desired. Certainly we should all agree that an encyclopedia article should be clear, concise, and totally factual, as well as unbiased. It should give a reader (even someone with no prior knowledge who quickly skims through it) an overview of the salient facts even if they don’t read through every section. I think this is a step in the right direction. Kermugin (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to have this in the lead: "Shortly after the verdict which was shown live on US television members of the Washington Press Corp and at least one United States Senator were asking US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if the US government planned to intervene." ... the US Department of State had monitored the trial all along and at best, Senator Cantwell was shown to be ill-prepared and out of line with her open letter. Nothing has been heard from Senator Cantwell since the verdict, so it definitely does not belong in the lead. This is a case of too much emphasis given to Senator Cantwell's open letter. Both Senator Cantwell and the Department of State belong to "the US government", however the DoS has jurisdiction in this matter. Jonathan (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. I think the rewrite is OK with FormerIP's changes, with the second sentence ("The killing shocked...") removed completely (it's tabloidy and unnecessary), and with the last sentence either removed, or shortened and merged with the previous one, i.e. "After the verdict, at least one United States Senator asked US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the US government planned to intervene." The three guilty parties need to be mentioned equally in the lead; attempting to skew guilt towards Guede is a WP:BLP violation. Lumumba also needs to be mentioned, I'd say. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Although the present lead section offers a clear and concise run-through of the murder, trials and convictions, it summarises nothing below point 7 in the table of contents. The re-write that is needed here should endeavour to provide a brief overview of the whole text. A two-paragraph structure as PhanuelB proposes would be suitable — perhaps the first to contain basic historical facts, the second reserved for responses. Ending the introduction with a one-line mention of Clinton makes for a rather abrupt finish — other reactions could be noted, and the resulting lawsuits against various involved parties should also not be excluded. SuperMarioMan 21:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to mention at least two or three of the reasons why the conviction of Knox and Sollecito remains controversial. Reasons that might fit here include the alleged abusive nature of Knox's interrogation, the early declaration by the police that the crime had been solved, massive pre trial publicity, unconventional handing of DNA evidence and key witnesses that came forward only months after the crime. The controversy over the verdict is after all the reason this murder is notable enough to include in Wikipedia. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can mention controversy in the lead, but this needs brevity, sourcing which is strong and clear, and balance. The lead is definitely not the place to directly argue the merits and weaknesses of the prosecution case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposal to improve the introduction and also agree with the points made about improving PhanuelB's proposal. The tone should be less journalistic (eg the sections such as "the killing shocked the medieval hill town..." and "[the trial] was closely watched in both Europe and the United States". we certainly shouldn't describe Guede as a criminal (he had no criminal convictions) and shouldn't imply that there was more evidence against him than the other defendants (opinion). The fact that the verdict was shown on US television and a US senator wrote to Hillary Clinton about it don't seem sufficiently significant aspects of the murder to warrant a place in the lead. Regarding the prominence we should give to the controversy, I honestly don't know what would be appropriate. Presumably we are talking here about the opinions expressed in reliable media sources, especially those in Italy, the UK and the US. Certainly a vast amount of the coverage of the case in news reports was factual and didn't express any obvious opinions. There was also a lot of the tabloidish focus on "Foxy Knoxy", her sex life, diaries, drugs, etc. In the UK I also read opinion pieces that questioned whether the court reached the right verdict and questioned the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict in Italy. However, these were a million miles from the "public lynching" opinions that PhanuelB has mentioned. They were also balanced by equally well-argued opinion pieces that presented Knox as being rightfully convicted. Perhaps some of the US-based neutral editors can give an assessment of how prominent the criticism of the case is in that country: to me it looks like a handful of very vocal people who have, for whatever reason, aligned themselves with the Knox family, but I may have got this wrong. We clearly have a difficult job to get the balance right, but it would certainly not be a balanced view to imply that criticism of the court has been the only reaction to the case. Bluewave (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Slightly refactored. On re-reading that, it sounds like I'm saying that some US-based editors are not neutral! That was not my intention. Bluewave (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the US-based neutral editors can give an assessment of how prominent the criticism of the case is in that country ... whenever I casually mention the name Amanda Knox, most people barely remember the case, and those that do recall the case remember her as "the college student that killed her roommate". Unfortunately for us in America, there have been a series of college & high school violent episodes (Columbine, Virginia Tech, et. al.) and an accompanying drugs problem that is becoming more publicized. I think these two things lessen the shock value of such tragedies, and as there is always some new story coming right around the corner, people have forgetten about Amanda Knox. This is most evident in how every "new" story about Amanda Knox gets its comment section flooded with the same cut & paste arguments. Jonathan (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you also noticed that most of the cutting and pasting is done by one person?  pablo 09:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pablo, yes, I have indeed noticed that all the comments seem to be derived from a singular source, I was just trying to be a polite as possible! Jonathan (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps some of the US-based neutral editors can give an assessment of how prominent the criticism of the case is in that country"? First of all, the personal experiences of other editors is not how Wikipedia works. It's supposed to be a consolodation of what reliable sources are saying. And that is not what is happening now. When a source is presented, a litmus test is applied. If the source has the wrong POV he gets ignored. Now for some WP:IAR. Let's cut the crap. There aren't any neutral editors here and there aren't any neutral administrators. Why not just admit it? At this point those who believe in guilt are up about 3 to 2. PhanuelB (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am neutral, and have done a lot of tidying & copyediting since the early days of the article. But I find I have to take long rests from it these days, such is the endless controversy. But since you mentioned it... Rothorpe (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no coverage or mention of this case in the U.S. at this time. If you Google, Amanda Knox, you'll see that there are virtually no news stories that have been written this year about this case. Senator Maria Cantwell has not said a single word about this case during the entire year. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has still never once commented on this case. If there is criticism of the case in this case, it's invisible. Except for a few blogs that are dedicated to the case. But the site traffic on those blogs has dwindled to less than zero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The above post is pure fantasy and illustrates how some will report not what reliable sources say but what they want to believe. TLC Documentary, 4 books, Trump, dozens of newspaper articles. The US State Department has said they will not comment while the appeals process is ongoing. PhanuelB (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Until such time as further official comment is made, there isn't much more that can be added to the article on the issue of US executive or senatorial involvement. Also, claiming WP:IAR as an excuse for berating other editors on their (supposed) lack of a neutral perspective is not really that WP:CIVIL, is it? You have been warned about this before; please do not continue to post messages that contain a hostile tone. SuperMarioMan 22:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The notable event is that the Washington Press Corp was asking the US Secretary of State if she planned to intervene. I know of no other non-political criminal case where this has occured in the last 50 years in a modern western democracy. The US State Department has NOT said they think the trial was fair. They have said they would not comment while the appeals proccess is underway. BTW... asking for neutral editors to comment on something does imply that some aren't neutral.PhanuelB (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was actually watching the Sunday morning news program, the Sunday after the verdict, when Clinton was asked about the Knox case. The expression on her face made it clear that she had not a clue who Knox was. Her answer also made it clear that she had no idea who Knox was. She has not been asked about the case since then. Not once.

Is this assertion of the absence of precedent in the last half-century attributable to a source? I'm not arguing that the current facts of the governmental connection to the subject matter should be removed from the article, and I accept that the point is notable. SuperMarioMan 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The "current facts of the governmental connection" are not in the article. Senator Maria Cantwell stated that the judge and jury were not impartial -- strong words in the legal community. The reference to anti-Americanism was a minor point. This reminds me of the tortured passage above about The witness saying he only knew of the burglary of his law office because Rudy Guede told him about it. The words are being painfully twisted to make a point 100% opposed to what all the reliable sources are saying. PhanuelB (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Material about Mignini

I just deleted a new paragraph that had been added about Mignini. It began "Prosecutor Mignini has a history of bringing false charges against people" which accusation would require a great deal better citations than were given! It also included things like "...prosecutor Mignini decided that..." which implies that the source knows a great deal about Mignini's thought processes. In any case, none of the material added was concerned with the trial of Knox and Sollecito, so I'd question its relevance. OK, so someone's made a Bold edit; I've Reverted; can we Discuss (WP:BRD)? Bluewave (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For a number of reasons that specific edit was revertible. Questions of Mignini's conduct in related cases calls into question his judgment and fitness to hold office in Amanda's case and this has been pointed out by numerous reliable secondary sources. Such issues are best summarized on this page and discussed in detail on a page dedicated to Mignini. Doug Preston's firsthand account of his interrogation by Mignini (CNN AC360 5-Dec-09) refers to him as "crazy" and "obsessed." According to Preston, Mignini accused Preston of being an accessory to murder. That's a joke; Preston and Spezi weren't doing anything to keep a serial killer out of jail. And Ohhhhh yes that has everything to do with Amanda's case.

Doug Preston is of course one of a number of banned subjects for this article. Others include Rudy's criminal acts prior to the murder and the condemnation of the trial in the days following the verdict by numerous reliable secondary sources on US cable channels. See also Anna Momigliano's Dec-09 article in Foreign Policy Magazine that very much states that this case is all about putting the Italian Judicial System on trial. I've been busy lately, but don't worry we're headed for arbitration. PhanuelB (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mignini is a non-notable figure. Yes, he holds a senior position within the criminal justice system of Perugia, but this doesn't entitle him to his own article. A reminder that BLP also applies on talkpages. The investigation against him is already referred to in the article, but we don't need the whole history. If we do, we also need balance, which given the history of the page will mean citing every reason why he's a creep followed by every reason why the source in question is not to be taken at face value which, empahtically, would not be an improvement to the article. Arbitration? Can't wait. I assume you're aware you will need to show other attempts to resolve any issues there are, though. --FormerIP (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mignini is of course not a notable figure because of accomplishment. He is notable because of his notoriety. It's fair to say he is the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe. The reliable sources that say this (a dozen commentators appearing on CBS,NBC,CNN, TLC, which I have repeatedly cited previously) have been banned from this article.

Wikipedia has pages for literally hundreds of US judges and prosecutors both sitting and from the past. The page for America's counterpart of Mignini,Mike Nifong, is longer than the MK page. And the criticism is in three separate cases: His criminal conviction mostly to do with the MOF case, the MK trial, and his handling of Spezi and Preston which provoked the ire of human rights groups such as the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists. Events related to Spezi and Preston were NOT part of the criminal case against him BTW. Of course he gets a page. A reminder WP:BLP also relates to AK and RS. PhanuelB (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated claims that sources have been "banned" will do rather little to advance the argument being made here. The worthiness of these sources respective to their inclusion in the article has been evaluated and discounted in previous threads. Talk pages are not the place to label biographical subjects "notorious" in accordance with the BLP policies — however, I do not see defamation of the convicts Knox and Sollecito on this page. And, on the subject of the prosecutor's independent noteworthiness, there is a the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counter-argument. It's fair to say he is the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe — oh really? SuperMarioMan 22:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Mignini's conviction for abuse of office and his other strange behaviors such as the arrest of Mario Spezi are all related to his investigation of the Monster of Florence case. Instead of creating a separate article for Mignini, I would suggest first updating the MOF article by translating the Italian Wikipedia article and then adding more details about Mignini to the section on the Narducci wild goose chase. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Get the idea in principle, Footwarrior, but think the type of material being talked about would be equally wrong inserted over there. Mignini didn't work on the Monster of Florence case and he's a very tangential figure in relation to it (notice how he isn't mentioned in the Italian article). It would be be total WP:COATRACK to expand that article just so a place can be found for non-notable BLP violations that an editor can't get inserted into this one. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to talk to the court in Florence who convicted Mignini of abuse of office in connection to the Monster of Florence case and show them your evidence that he didn't work on the case. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. He didn't work on the case. If you don't believe me, do some research. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I did do some research and that is why I don't believe you. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly didn't. Mignini didn't work on the Monster of Florence case. He worked on the Narducci case, a different case where there seems to have been some sort of obscure theory of a link but which turned out to be unconnected.

ie Mignini is a hopelessly tangential figure in relation to the Monster of Florence case, and so that is not an appropriate place to dump a laundry list of allegations against him. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Narducci case was a suicide that Mignini claimed was a coverup for the MOF case. That is why the Italian Wikipedia article has a section on the Narducci investigation. Mignini's abuse of office conviction was for illegal wiretaps done to prove the coverup. Mignini also arrested Mario Spezi on charges of interfering with the MOF investigation[2]. When a prosecutor files charges and has people arrested, it's not tangential to an investigation. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not tangential to the Narducci investigation, but it is tangential to the Monster of Florence investigation. --FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PS Mignini was not convicted for illegal wiretapping. Per WP:BLP you should remove that false allegation and do some research as to the actual facts of the case. --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Facts that can be verified are not false allegations and do not violate WP:BLP, see WP:V. Source for my claim about Mignini's conviction.[3]. --Footwarrior (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the wiretaps in question were not ruled illegal in themselves, it was the way in which the evidence was handled. So I think the wire story (edit: just noticed the Freudian slip there) you have is inaccurate. But that's a side-issue. The main point is that he is not notable enough for his own article and there should also not be a POV fork into the Murder of Florence article, because POV forks are a bad thing and because he is not notable enough in relation to that article either. There particularly should not be a POV-fork created with the unusual belief in mind that Mignini is "the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe". --FormerIP (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a European judicial figure who has been ridiculed and dragged through the mud on cable channels broadcast throughout the world in the way that Mignini has. Name somebody who's more heavily criticized. In the years following WWII there were probably figures who's wartime records caught up with them, particularly in Germany, but that isn't what we're talking about. There would of course also be those who were removed from office for various common violations of the law, but that doesn't result in an international debate about them and it probably doesn't call into question the quality of their past work in court. Reliable secondary sources say there IS a nexus between Mignini's crackpot theories in the MOF case (Preston an accessory to murder for example) and his crackpot theories in Amanda's case (Amanda directing Rudy to assault Meredith.) There's a litmus test here, if a reliable source says something it gets thrown out if it's not what somebody wanted to hear. I think this Wikipedia page violates NPOV. PhanuelB (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Link for Facebook Members who may want to edit this article

Greetings! As many of you may know, Facebook recently reached its 500 million member mark! As Facebook has grown, it has added new features to accommodate the interests, talents and abilities of its members.

In April of 2010, Facebook and Wikipedia entered into an arrangement to incorporate some of the Wikipedia content onto Facebook, so that Facebook members and Wikipedia can mutually benefit and Facebook members will come over here to write and edit.

"Wikipedia articles on Facebook will further increase the reach of free knowledge on the internet. Facebook has hundreds of millions of users, and now more than 70% of their traffic is coming from outside of the US. Our hope is that many Facebook users (if they are not already) will also be inclined to join the large community of Wikipedia contributors. Facebook will follow the free licenses (CC-BY-SA) and help us find more ways people can share knowledge. Furthermore, we will be looking at other ways that both parties can cooperate in the future."

You can read more about this here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-April/057598.html

and here:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721

Because it is likely that many more Facebook members will become interested in participating in Wikipedia, including on this article, it would be helpful to have a link to the Facebook page on the Wikipedia side. That way, when Facebook members come over here to write and edit on the Murder of Meredith Kercher/Amanda Knox article, they will be able to click back and forth between the two sites. There is already a link to this article on the Facebook side to facilitate members coming over here to write and edit.

I did try to add that link, but it was deleted. I hope that the editors here will reconsider and allow the link to be added. Wikipedia can only benefit from mutual collaboration from the 500 million Facebook members from around the world. The Facebook page on this article is totally neutral, in that all points of view are allowed equally. It is not an advocacy page for any particular side.

I will leave the decision in your good hands and hope that after you have made your decision, someone would be so kind as to restore the link. Thanks ever so much. Faceforward (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking to social networking pages is explicitly prohibited by this policy, #10. Further, I doubt that an article that is already highly contentious will benefit from a massive influx of inexperienced editors jumping straight into this one. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia chose to create an alliance with Facebook for a reason so they have no interest in hiding this page. Wikipedia benefits from greater participation not less, particularly in this case where the deviations from the views of published sources are so egregious. When the article is written from a NPOV then they will not have problems with an influx of those who see a problem in need of action. PhanuelB (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Less Soapboxing and more factual, sourced and diff-based arguments please, thank you. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The dozen reliable secondary sources that I named are the most important sources who have written about the case. That is "factual" and "sourced." PhanuelB (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Events surrounding the murder.

I replaced the text about turning off cell phones with the witness seeing AK at RS's place. RS answered his phone at 8:42 and talked to his father for a few minutes, so he could not have turned off his phone at 8:40 as the article stated. Cell phone records also can't prove someone is at an address, only that they are in range of the cell tower. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

New Section on Criticism

This section should replace the "Media Coverage" and "Support for Knox" Sections

Removing soapboxing Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 10:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Judges' report I restored the hashish and comic book motivation in the Judges Report section based on this PMF translation of the motive in the Italian report: On the effects of drugs of the type used by Amanda and by Raffaele, such as hashish and marijuana, [we] heard the testimony of Professor Taglialatela who, while underlining the great subjective variability (page 211, hearing of 17 July 2009) specified that the use of such substances has a negative influence on the cognitive capacity and causes alterations of perception (pages 201 and 207) and of the capacity to comprehend a situation (page 218). In his turn, Professor Cingolani, who together with Professor Umani Ronchi and Professor Aprile, had also dealt with the toxicological aspect (see witness report lodged on 15 April 2008, pages 26 and following), responding to the question he had been asked as to whether the use of drugs lowers inhibitions replied: ‚That is beyond doubt‛ (page 163 hearing of 19 September 2009), while correlating that effect to the habits of the person [on] taking the drugs. Raffaele Sollecito’s friends had furthermore stated that such substances had an effect of relaxation and stupor. Therefore it may be deduced that, accustomed to the consumption of drugs and the effects of the latter, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito participated actively in Rudy’s criminal acts aimed at overcoming Meredith’s resistance, subjugating her will and thus allowing Rudy to act out his lustful impulses; and this is considered to have happened because, for those [i.e. for people] who did not disdain the use of drugs (Amanda has stated that on that evening, before ‚making love‛, they had consumed drugs), watching films and reading comic books in which sexuality is accompanied by violence and by situations of fear, disregarding the concept of sexuality as an encounter of [two] persons moved by reciprocal and free emotion (see the comic books seized from Raffaele Sollecito and the statements on the viewing of films which had drawn the attention of the tutors of the ONAOSI College attended by Raffaele Sollecito), the prospect of helping Rudy in [his] goal of subduing Meredith in order to sexually abuse her may have seemed to be an exciting stimulant which, although unexpected, had to be tried. A motive, therefore, of an erotic, sexually violent nature which, arising from the choice of evil made by Rudy, found active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The reference in the article points to the original Italian source. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Footwarrior. I've changed the wording slightly, as per our previous discussion about this. The main point is that the Massei report does not draw a line of causation between drugs and comics and the crime. What he does is speculate that these things may have influenced the behaviour of Knox and Sollecito. I think this is important, because to many readers with knowledge of the effects of smoking cannabis and reading comics, the idea that these things caused the murder may not ring true (and it is not what the report says in any case). I also changed the previous sentence to reflect what is in the source and remove the phrase "main instigator", which I think is misleading. Whilst it is true that the report has events starting with Guede, it does not single him out as in any sense "more culpable", which the phrase might be taken to imply. Also, it would be wrong for our wording to suggest that the murder was pre-planned, which the court explicitly said was not the case. --FormerIP (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC) PS An example of (IMO) weirdly slanted reporting of the case: What do you think the standard verb journalists would employ to convey the idea of someone sticking a knife in someone's throat, thereby killing them? Well, in CNN's version, Knox and Sollecito "poked" Kercher. --FormerIP (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Banning of Reliable Sources Violates WP:BLP for Amanda First of all, let's clear any confusion about whether previous statements about Mignini are out of line. Here are the WP:RS who are :"dragging him through the mud" on cable channels seen throughout the world. Let's see another European judicial figure who's been criticized like this in broadcasts seen or read by this many people. FormerIP writes: "Substantial physical evidence" is true of all three killers, so it is misleading to highlight this in the case of Guede." Three killers are strong words so a comprehensive citation of reliable sources that disagree is legitimate. The following are WP:RS. To ignore them is to violate Amanda's WP:BLP rights. Anna Momigliano (Foreign Policy Magazine 10-Dec-09) "U.S. cable shows declared the verdict a sham, shredding the evidence and the court's conduct. And now, the Knox case is turning into an international trial on the reliability of Italy's justice system." "Speculating wildly, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini accused Knox of harboring hatred against Meredith until the time came for taking revenge, and drunkenly attempting to drag Kercher into heavy sexual games." Paul Ciolino (Private Investigator retained by CBS speaking on 48 Hours) “I’ll probably get indicted in Italy for saying this. I don’t care. He[Mignini] is ruining the lives of two kids who have done nothing.” "They’re so desperate to make a case against this kid that they’ll do anything.” Doug Preston (commentator for CBS, CNN, and NBC) “he [Mignini] interrogated me. He accused me of committing horrendous crimes including being an accessory to murder…. I’m a professional journalist; I have a very good memory; I know what happened in that interrogation.” “this prosecutor[Mignini] thinks he knows what happened at that crime scene. The facts don’t matter to him.” Steve Moore (Retired FBI Agent) "In the U.S., this type of prosecutorial misconduct would almost certainly have resulted in a mistrial, and likely jail time for the prosecutor." Judge Michael Heavey (12-Aug-08) “The prosecutor’s office, police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda." Tim Egan (NY Times correspondent) "Preposterous, made-up sexual motives were ascribed to her...What century is this? Didn’t Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trials teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria with a devil twist?" Judy Bachrach (Guest on CNN) "I have always thought that Amanda was going to go to a Kangaroo court and unfortunately I’ve been proven correct." "there isn't a scintilla of evidence.. the prosecutor is famously incompetent." John Q Kelly (Guest on CNN Larry King Live) "This case is probably the most egregious international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen... This is actually a public lynching based on rank speculation and vindictiveness." Donald Trump (Real Estate Magnate) "This is a miscarriage of justice. I think the president should absolutely get involved and I think people should boycott Italy." Peter Van Sant (CBS News Correspondent) “We have concluded that Amanda Knox is being railroaded.” “She’s an innocent woman. And I would stake my reputation as a journalist [on that] and I have been in this business for a quarter century.”PhanuelB (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC) We've had this discussion here before, started in pretty much the same way. I think it would be useful to know if you have anything to say that is either new or more specific. --FormerIP (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC) WP:BATTLEGROUND applies once more, it seems. How does being a guest on a talk show make one's opinions on a court case more authoritative and meriting inclusion? What legal experience does Donald Trump, a "real estate magnate" have? So much as to place him on an even keel with officials of an Italian court? How is Preston, a horror author, qualified to offer definitive analysis? A fresh surge of sensationalist, tabloid-ish pseudo-commentaries is not needed here at this time. If one wanted to assess the theory of global warming and how accurate it is, would the best source for authoritative comment be a mass of media personalities who know nothing of science? SuperMarioMan 00:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) "Paul Ciolino (Private Investigator retained by CBS speaking on 48 Hours)" This is what makes the CBS documentary 48 Hours not a reliable source, it is essentially a self-funded and self-published source. CBS is not presenting news in a journalistic manner as it would on the CBS Evening News, rather, CBS is manufacturing the news. That is why many documentaries should be considered in a similar manner to blogosphere, almost all of which is self-published. Jonathan (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Collapsing comment, tone is completely unacceptable and in breach of collegiality. MLauba (Talk) 13:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I guess CBS fails the litmus test. The documentary says what somebody doesn't want to hear so it can't be a reliable source. This documentary has been nominated for an Emmy Award. That means it has respect within the journalistic community -- period. It is not "self-published", "making the news", "self funded", or "blogosphere." The CBS 48 Hours segment talks of a public lynching, hate, and hysteria, the same theme echoed by the dozen or so reliable sources that I have named. Please also consider that an Emmy Award nomintated CBS documentary is the single item (out of 10) that they choose to challenge. Wikipedia needs to take a hard look at what is happening here. The "consensus" of a dozen or so people is diabolically opposed to what all the reliable sources are saying. The reliable sources banned from this article talk of public lynchings, hate, and witch trial hysteria. If Wikipedia gets burned on this one they will have earned it.PhanuelB (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Winning an entertainment award does not guarantee that a documentary contains reliable content. A sensationalist tone is perhaps enough to convince some of the "truth", but would a cold, hard, clinical look at the facts of the case, avoiding added melodrama, really bode well for a programme's chances at the Emmies? Is it a case of style rather than substance? Legal journals would be preferable to an influx of plain media sources which, to a greater extent or less, spout populist, rather than specialist, opinion. It is also not just the CBS retrospective that concerns me among the 10 sources detailed above. SuperMarioMan 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Just to note: I think the claim of censorship or suppressing sources is a bit of a red herring here. There is already a fair amount in the article covering the general topic Phanuel is talking about (ie support for Amanda Knox by her family, within the media and by public figures). We can't include every word ever spoken on the matter. I am not sure what Phanuel is proposing, but if it is anything it must be something to do with WP:WEIGHT. --FormerIP (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Besides, that CBS 48 Hours documentary is more notable for having an unethical producer that is in jail for the extortion and blackmailing of David Letterman. The Emmy Award nomination is more likely to have been given to tap into that buzz surrounding the potential to award to someone in prison. Jonathan (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I've been reading along but now need to jump in on the issue of WP:RS vis-a-vis Steve Moore (Ret FBI). I understand your reluctance to accept his bonafides as a crime scene expert without substantial proof to support it. However, as an ex-Special Operator I can also understand why an ex-law enforcement or intelligence agent wouldn't casually post his detailed resume all over the internet. So let's cut to the chase. What is the level of documentation that would be acceptable to everyone concerned as well as WP policy to establish Steve Moore as a WP:RS ? His observations are some of the most clear, concise and understandable to the layman that are available. To allow discussion of the physical evidence collected without a discussion of the importance of the lack of key evidence found (Mr Moore's area of expertise) is misleading to your readers at best and seems to be a clear attempt to slant the article to a guilty position.Tjholme (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Proposed remix I have sandboxed the article with a different runnging order: User:FormerIP/MOMKre-arrange. The main reason is to bring together details about the evidence in the case, rather than spread out in different sections. (ie previously, forensic eviednce appeared in three different sections). Some duplication has been removed (the bra clasp evidence and the bloody footprints), but this was previously almost the same wording repeated in different parts of the article. Because some content has been moved from the section about the K&S trial, this has meant losing a small amount of contextualising information (eg "The prosecution opened with witnesses from the postal police, Kercher's flatmates and their friends..."). Nothing which stands any chance of being contentious has been removed. What do you think? --FormerIP (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I read through your proposed remix and I think generally it is an improvement on the article, reducing duplication and bringing the evidence together. Because the arguments about evidence are now all in one place, they become more thematic than chronological and so some of the chronological context which has been retained looks a bit odd. In particular, things like "the defence case began in June 2009, with Knox testifying for the first time on 12 June" don't really fit into the arguments section. I think this should either go back in the trial section or be cut altogether. Bluewave (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks Bluewave, I've made this change. Note to everyone: I'm going to wait a short while, but I may take silence to mean consent before too long. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC) FormerIP, your idea to bring together details about the evidence may be logical but the execution is difficult and must be done carefully. For example, your paragraph under “Forensic evidence”: ”Chemical analysis revealed footprints in the flat, which prosecutors said matched the feet of Knox[52] and Sollecito.[51] A footprint, believed to be a woman's, was found under the body. It was the right size to be Knox's, although it was never matched to her footwear.[53] Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the footprints and elsewhere in the apartment.[54] “ This is unacceptable because it is a synthesis of facts out of context to create a totally wrong impression. None of Knox’s DNA was found in Kercher’s room but putting the remark about a footprint under the body between references to footprints in other parts of the house makes it seem that her DNA was found in that shoeprint. Not true. Also, the print under the body was only a sketchy partial print and I believe I read that the defense argued that it was actually a match to the other prints definitively made by Guede. Therefore the allegation that it was the right size to be Knox’s would appear to be a prosecution argument and not proven evidence. I haven’t had time to examine all of your proposed remix; this was just the first glaring problem I noticed. Hopefully, others more versed in the details than myself can assist with other corrections necessary before it can be implemented. Presenting the information in a more logical format is good, but as always, the devil is in the details. Let’s proceed cautiously and give others ample time to examine and comment on your remix.Kermugin (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC) OK, I see your point about this. I guess the thing to do is to swap the second and third sentences in the extract you quote. For reassurance: I *think* this is the only example of a paragraph put together from sentences that were previously located in different parts of the article. For the rest, it is mostly same paragraphs, different order. So there shouldn't be any other examples like that. Thanks, Kermugin. --FormerIP (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I've done this now. --FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Massei report translation This is an amateur translation and therefore probably not an RS: [4]. The original Italian is here: [5] --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC) The Massei report is not a reliable source and that has nothing to do with the translation. Controversy surrounding the quality of the report is a subject of the article. PhanuelB (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the link. The report hardly seems to have been mentioned by the secondary sources (when it was published, I seem to remember The Times devoted about 3 column-inches to it on about page 53). However, coming, as I do, from a country where the internal workings of courts are not routinely available to the public, it is fascinating to see the detailed rationale of how the court reached its conclusions. I agree that it is of limited use to us, as it is an amateur translation of a primary source. Bluewave (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC) The translation of the Massei report is a professional translation - it took 5 months ... "The 12 "unpaid volunteers" who translated the Massei report into English live on four different continents and include translators, lawyers, a medical doctor and a molecular biologist." (report from Seattle Post Intelligencer August 9th 2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.244.186 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Hi. Didn't mean to be at all disrespectful of the work that has gone into it. But I suspect it wouldn't pass our normal WP:RS standards, due to not having been published "officially" or by an organisation or website that has some equivalent of a board to give oversight. I could be wrong about this. In any case, it is a useful tool for anyone here who isn't able to read it in Italian. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC) FormerIP: So you're saying professional translators lawyers, doctors or scientists when they work "freelance" aren't operating in a professional capacity. (86.159.244.186) FormerIP, the report did not come from the official judicial arm of Italy. It was comissioned by a third-party and biased web forum. Translation of language always includes interpretation. Therefore, it should not be considered for the same reasons you suggest any pro-Amanda content derived from "blogs" are not included as well. Again, this goes back to the entire arguement about being one-sided with the application of the rules of Wikipedia. The comments about Steve Moore's articles are what I'm referring to here. JSL5871 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Hence, in the very first sentence of this section "probably not a RS". Whoever Steve Moore is, his reliability as a source is best discussed at RS/N  pablo 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Nadeau book (Angel Eyes) As an editor raised concerns about reliability, although I suspect the source is reliable I have re-sourced or re-written the two possibly contentious sections that were only sourced to Nadeau. If anyone can find other reliable sources to back up that; Knox's DNA was mixed in with the bloody footprints in Kercher's blood, or That Marriott would only deal with journalists that promised positive coverage then feel free to change them back. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I think fair enough on the DNA quote, but I think the claim about Marriot should go back in, since it is an observation reported by Nadeau (ie even if we found other sources for it, they would only be reporting what she has said in her book). It should be reworded with an attribution though, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I'm fine with that, it'd be nice to find another source though; you'd have thought a journo somewhere would've mentioned it. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Regarding the mixed DNA/blood, the Massei report translation says "... Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own room leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable only to Amanda..." So it sounds like Nadeau has got this right. Bluewave (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, well that looks like corroboration. On the general question of footprints, it is worth noting that the Massei report declines to reach a conclusion as to whose shoe made the print under Knox's body, leaving open the possibility that it may have been Guede's (there seems to have been some dispute in court as to whether is was a woman's shoe or a man's shoe) (see 343-344 of the Massei translation). As reflected in what you quote, Bluewave, the report also concludes that two bare footprints, one in Kercher's room and one just outside it, belonged to Knox (347-348). These prints are not currently mentioned in the article. This is significant, because the article currently states: "there was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered", which would appear to be misleading - although footprints are not mentioned in the list, they are a type of forensic evidence. --FormerIP (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Good, that part can be restored, then; it's probably worth still keeping the source I added in as well. I'm not sure how to quote from Massei - if someone wants to restore "footprints" with that reference that'd be good. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I don't really understand what is wrong with Nadeau's book as a source....other than that one editor has expressed the opinion that it is biased and (again in their opinion) that it contains misinformation. We don't usually dismiss a source based on one editor's opinion, or am I missing something? Bluewave (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC) On page 34 of the PMF translation of the Massei Report it states that a footprint in Knox's room (not Kercher's room) was compatible with Knox. The other prints deemed compatible with Amanda are in the corridor. The current article is not misleading when it states no forensic evidence places Knox in Kercher's room. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Bluewave: Given the amount of identifiable misreporting on the case, I would say that we should be wary of any information, particularly about evidence, that only appears in one source. Admittedly, this probably applies to other material that no-one has suggested removing and, admittedly, Nadeau is probably more reliable than many journalists, given that she has written a book on the case. But the info is corroborated now, so I think there is no issue as far as that goes. --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC) OK I'm much happier that we are suspicious of evidence that is only singly-sourced, rather than being suspicious of Nadeau for reasons that have not been made clear! Bluewave (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC) No, it wasn't that I was saying Nadeau was unreliable, only that I was a little unhappy that two quite contentious issues (the DNA in the footprint, and the claim that the PR team would only give briefings to journalists who'd write positively about Knox) were only sourced to Nadeau and I couldn't find any other source that didn't derive from Nadeau, especially as you'd have thought both issues would've been covered elsewhere. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Okay footwarrior, I stand corrected there, although what it does say is that Knox's print was found "in the corridor in front of the door to Meredith Kercher’s room, and was pointed towards the entrance", which is significant, no? --FormerIP (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Would Steve Moore be considered reliable, then, if he wrote a book on this case as well? Barbie has made false claims in the past, including having access to 10,000s of pages of legal documents, which, when pressed, she has never verified. Making the assertion that someone is more reliable because she wrote a book (published by the company she is a journalist for) is not sound logic and goes to the very basis of what sources are allowed on this page and what are not. JSL5871 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Please feel free to link to any reliable source that shows Nadeau to be unreliable. Regardless, you will have noticed (or perhaps you didn't bother) that I have ensured that any contentious issue sourced only ro Nadeau is either backed up by a reliable source or removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC) JSL: Hypothetically, yes Steve Moore might be considered a reliable source if his essays had been published anywhere other than a personal website (although it should be added that the strength of his claims mean that they would need to appear in very strong sources). You should either substantiate (with an RS) or remove your accusation against Nadeau, per WP:BLP. --FormerIP (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC) I have warned JSL and will remove this section unless they come up with any convincing evidence that Nadeau is unreliable. Despite the fact that nothing controversial is sourced to her ... Black Kite (t) (c) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Criticism of the Knox Sollecito Trial This defines much of what I think belongs in the article.PhanuelB (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC) US Television Commentary The Knox Sollecito verdict was covered live on US cable channels and was met with harsh criticism. On CNN Larry King Live legal commentator John Q. Kelly dismissed the trial as a “gross injustice” while a second guest, Judy Bachrach, termed it a “kangaroo court.” In a CBS 48 Hours documentary broadcast following the verdict, author Douglas Preston characterized the case as “based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories.” On Fox News, journalist Peter Van Sant appeared on the O'Reilly Factor and compared the trial to the Duke lacrosse case. Political commentator Anne Coulter appeared on a subsequent segment and advocated guilt. Other commentators included journalist/author Barbie Latza Nadeau who saw the evidence as weak but disagreed with stronger criticism of the trial and former judge Jeanine Pirro who challenged the claim that there was no evidence. Police Investigation In a series of articles published on one of four advocacy web sites about the case (two for guilt , two against ), a recently retired career FBI agent named Steve Moore condemned the police work and called for the criminal prosecution of law enforcement officials involved in the case. His articles focused on the improper use of luminol, flawed interrogation techniques, and the misinterpretation of physical evidence. He has also made appearances on Seattle area radio and television stations. Other criticism of the police work included: (1) The failure to notify the victim’s family in a timely fashion; (2) the failure to recover important physical evidence until 47 days after the crime; (3) the failure to measure the victim’s body temperature; (3) the failure to examine an apparent semen stain found underneath the victim; (4) the failure to test Luminol identified foot prints for the presence of blood; (5) the failure to videotape important interrogation sessions; and (6) the failure to interview a possibly important witness, Nara Cappezelli, until months after the crime. I might change the header of this section to Police and Forensics Investigation.Jaberryhill (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Failure to Arrest Rudy Guede Prior to the Murder Rudy Guede had no criminal convictions at the time of the murder. However, in the weeks leading up to the crime he had participated in a series of criminal acts which Italian police knew about but for reasons that remain unclear did not act upon. Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini has conceded that Guede should already have been in jail when the murder took place leading to questions of whether Meredith Kercher would still be alive if police had done their jobs properly. The similarities between Guede’s modus-operandi in his break-ins prior to the murder and what was observed at the crime scene was central to arguments made by lawyers for Knox and Sollecito that Guede had committed the murder alone. By some reports Guede was known by Italian police to have committed six crimes in the 33 days prior to the murder. In a deposition submitted at trial Cristian Tramontano described how he had found Guede prowling around his house while he slept. In the incident, which was reported to police and witnessed by Tramontano’s girlfriend, Guede brandished a knife in his escape. Only four days prior to the murder Guede was caught alone, prowling around inside a Milan nursery school as the owner, Maria Del Prato, arrived in the morning. Police found Guede to be in possession of a laptop and cell phone stolen from a Perugian law office a few weeks earlier. He also had a large knife in his backpack which he had taken from the nursery school kitchen. Police did not detain Guede but instead put him back on a train to Perugia. The Perugian law office break-in was significant because: (1) The entry was through a second story window that had been broken with a rock, and (2) a cell phone had been stolen. Defense attorneys also pointed out that in these acts, he had no accomplices and was armed with a knife. Giuliano Mignini The prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, had had a controversial past that called into question his judgment and actions in the Amanda Knox case. Mignini’s January 2010 conviction and 16 month prison sentence for abuse of office dealt with his actions in the Monster of Florence case. His critics claimed that in both the MOF case and in Amanda's case he had a penchant for outlandish theories unsupported by evidence and employed questionable interrogation techniques. Independent of that criminal conviction was his harassment of two authors writing a book about the MOF case, Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi, who had been critical of his work. Mignini had Spezi jailed for several weeks and Preston was forced to leave the country. The New York based Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement condemning Mignini’s actions in the case. Mignini at one point had called Preston in for an interrogation. In a series of television appearances about the Amanda Knox case, Preston ridiculed Mignini and said that during his own interrogation Mignini had accused him of being an accessory to murder. Mignini’s interrogation methods with Preston were compared to his and his associate’s controversial interrogation of Amanda Knox. Leaks to the Press and the HIV Test Prior to trial the prosecution leaked large amounts of information about the case to the press. Some of this information was false. These leaks were criticized as an effort to influence public opinion prior to trial. Particularly controversial was the October 2008 release by police of autopsy photos of the victim’s arms intended to show that multiple attackers had participated in the crime. Shortly after her arrest Amanda Knox was given an HIV test and was told that the results were positive but would require further verification. She was later told that she did not have HIV. In the interim she made entries in her prison diary which listed all of the sexual partners in her life. Prison officials provided these diary pages to the European tabloid press. The tabloids reported that she had had sex with seven Italian men during her short time in Italy even though the diary entries said no such thing. In Angel Face, Barbie Latza Nadeau states that the false HIV positive result was a trick used to collect evidence and was not based on a medical result. The incident was seen as an attempt by police to influence public opinion prior to the trial. The Jury According to multiple eye-witness accounts, jurors regularly slept while court was in session. Jurors were not prohibited from reading news reports about the case and were free to talk about the case among themselves. According to an account by Barbie Nadeau jurors were insulted after they learned of a New York Times editorial by Tim Egan that sharply criticized the trial. Particularly troubling was a statement made by one of the jurors following the verdict that appeared to indicate she did not know that the standard for guilt was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Juror Angela Irene Ceccarini stated: “It was hard to see Knox and Sollecito doing this, but it was possible. People can all let things get out of control; we can all drink too much then get in a car and drive.” US Government Reaction Immediately following the verdict US Senator Maria Cantwell, from Knox’s home state of Washington, released a statement in which she indicated her opinion that Ms. Knox had not received a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. She also appeared on CNN and stated her intention to contact Italian authorities, the European Union, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Shortly after the verdict, Secretary of State Clinton was asked on ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos if the US Government planned to intervene. In subsequent State Department briefings, members of the Washington Press Corp also asked how the US government would respond. The US government has indicated that it would be “cautious about commenting while an appeals process is underway.” Prior to the trial Seattle area Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey had spoken out about the case and written letters to Perugian Judicial officials on State of Washington Court stationary. Judge Heavey’s daughter had been friends with Amanda Knox in high school. In a July 2008 letter he stated: “The prosecutor’s office, police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda. A Perugian judge, Claudia Matteini, was caught up in this false speculation and has repeated and added to the false speculation in her opinions.” In June 2010 Judge Heavey was brought before the State of Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct for his actions in the case. The charges centered around the prohibition on judges using “the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others.”

PhanuelB (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The fact is, that there is no U.S. government reaction. If you can find me a single quote dated for the year 2010 about this case, by any U.S. government official, I'd be shocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.172.223 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The cite by Jill Dougherty above is a State Department comment. They're saying that they won't speak publically while the appeals process is underway. Such public silence and behind the scenes communication is common.PhanuelB (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

break

I got as far as the subsection titled "Failure to Arrest Rudy Guede Prior to the Murder". We do not require a "trial by Wikipedia" of the supposed faults of the Italian police or the apparent evil of Guede. Apart from the fact that this proposed content has an entrenched bias, and could not hope to satisfy NPOV demands, it is far too long and at the least requires considerable trimming. I count about 1,500 words of main text — representative of about one third of the current article length. Really, this argument has been debated and finished all before, and the sources used have been rejected by consensus. Blog sites such as Injustice In Perugia are not welcome. SuperMarioMan 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• This proposal appears totally disproportionate to the level of criticism available from reliable sources. Comparable articles don't seem to have "criticisms" sections in any case.
• Much of the criticism above is not attributed, and therefore not suitable for WP.
• In order to maintain NPOV, WP coverage should give much more weight to statements not condemning the process, compared to what you propose. (Based on my understanding of what would constitute NPOV for this article).
• Material by Steve Moore and Doug Preston may not be useable on policy grounds (I think this has been raised in previous discussions).
• Given the history, the proposal seems wildly over-ambitious. Serious question for PhanuelB: did you imagine there was any chance of other editors supporting it, or was your intention just to provoke objections? --FormerIP (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

JSL5871 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I totally support Phanuel. It seems a lot of the push-back here is one-sided, an oft-convenient way of keeping the article one-sided. A perfect example of this is hijacking the Amanda Knox page -- for a person -- with this one -- an event. This is seemingly a unilateral decision which only guides people finding the search on Google or Wiki to this specific page. That is totally manipulative, if you ask me.

To disregard comments from experts -- Steve Moore and Douglas Preston -- is again unilateral censorship and bias towards one side of the story. Please point out here what those policies are -- HERE -- so we can discuss it. Be specific or do not dismiss talking points on these points out-of-hand.

If this article cannot address both sides, I propose the Amanda Knox hijacking get removed so a separate article about Amanda can be posted. JSL5871 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Two notes here:

1. The "Amanda Knox article has been hijacked" is brought up on quite a regular basis. Let's put this canard to rest: The Amanda Knox article was merged into this article by the same contributor who created Amanda Knox in the first place, 4 days after creating it. See the first talk page archive here, that also explains why this article is named "the murder of".
2. Editors are reminded, once more, to assume good faith, to avoid any soapboxing and to remain when dealing with other editors if they wish to express their point of view. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doug Preston not useable? Doug Preston has been selected by CNN, NBC, and CBS to comment extensively on the case. Steve Moore is a WP:RS is every sense of the word and has been selected by Seattle area radio stations to comment on the case -- for the full hour. Your sole disagreement is that he is not saying what you want to hear.

MLauba, I created a Amanda Knox sandbox page as a test. You a failed it. You pointed out to me privately that it was not allowed. That to me is hijacking. I'm less concerned about your taking offense to my "soapboxing" as I am being blocked from enabling two sides to a story. JSL5871 (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

EVERYTHING above is "attributed." The citation footnotes I put together do not show up on the talk page but do show up in the sandbox. Name something that isn't "attributed" properly? This criticism section IS different than other Wikipedia pages. That's because the case is different; virtually all the reliable sources are criticizing this trial in unprecedented language.

This page in it's current form is 100% devoid of NPOV. Serious question, do you think the hijacking of this page will stand? PhanuelB (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Three major flaws I see here:

1) Senator Cantwell and Judge Heavey are in the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch of the US Government, respectively. Neither has any authority whatsoever to comment; nor any jurisdiction over a murder in a sovereign nation; nor do either represent the "US Government" position, they are essentially statements that are as non-binding as a campaign promises. The Department of State (Executive Branch) has complete authority and jurisdiction and has said nothing of the sort regarding any "criticism'; of this case, on the contrary, they have explicitly supported the verdict rendered by Italian Judicial system. Saying anything otherwise is WP:OR.

2) I do not see the work or credentials of "Steve Moore" anywhere other than on one of the pro-Knox advocacy website. I suspect that Steve Moore is a ghostwriter for the webmaster of this particular site.

What you suspect is less relevent than the credentials of Steve Moore. I don't believe you have the credentials to moderate this discussion, yet here we are talking about it. It's all too convenient that you disregard him. What are Barbie's credentials? JSL5871 (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

3) "Preston was forced to leave the country I have not seen anything from a WP:RS that shows that Preston on was "forced" to leave [Italy].

I do not see a reason for any of the above making it into the article. This is almost entirely sourced from Blogs and should not be considered a WP:RS Jonathan (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is sourced from blogs..Period. Name something that is. Look at the footnotes -- they don't show up properly on the talk page. Steve Moore is a reliable source because of his credentials. Law enforcement officials typically publish material that is confidential and not available to the public.

The assertion that the US State Department has "explicitly supported the verdict rendered by Italian Judicial system" is false and is contradicted by note 33.

"Senior State Department Officials tell CNN the US will review the trial but is being cautious about commenting while an appeals process is underway"

That means they've decided not to comment while the appeals process is in place. The fact that some of the comments are from the legislative and judicial branches of the US government is irrelevant.PhanuelB (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, at least we both agree that the US State department is withholding further comment until after the appeals process is compete. Once that is complete Wikipedia can comment on it. Until then , you and I can put away our respective crystal balls. As for Senator Cantwell, she has gone completely silent since her non-committal, unsolicited statement. Besides, why should Senator Cantwell hold more relevance here?. ANY politician can make any non-binding statement, the US Constitution specifically prevents such statements from holding any weight across the branches, this is the primary intention of the checks and balances, so the government branch the source quote come from is totally relevant. Plus, your CNN citation is contradicted by the State Department itself.

Law enforcement officials typically publish material that is confidential and not available to the public. I still do not believe Steve Mooore exists. I believe he is a ghostwriter for the pro-Knox website, and the burden is on YOU to provide proper his credentials. And I think you will need a lot of luck to get your justification and explanation to stick. No need to further discuss Mr Preston. This is getting quite repetitive and tiresome. Jonathan (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To repeat, Doug Preston has been choosen by CBS, NBC and CNN to comment on the case. The fact that some editors don't like his message is not a valid reason to say he is not a reliable source. Steve Moore has appeared on Seattle's KIRO radio. His credentials and career summary have been clearly stated there and in his articles. The idea that Wikipedia cannot comment on the State Department's decision to refrain from comment for the moment (very common) until some fabricated criteria is met is not supported by Wikipedia's policy. PhanuelB (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, you have had multiple editors and administrators explain to you at different points in time the difference between a Reliable Source and subjective, biased opinion, but you are choosing to continually ignore them. Proceed as you wish. Jonathan (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel (in repsonse to your post above): Douglas Preston is problematic because of his history with Mignini, the fact that Mignini is apparently suing him and the fact that some news sources have withdrawn material he wrote for them. Which all means he ought to be handled with care. In terms of your proposal, though, the problem is different. You have created a section entitled "Giuliano Mignini" which contains no information about Mignini other than Preston's opinion of him and also contains little that is on-topic in relation to this article (it is all about the fact that Mignini questioned Preston once upon a time). It is pure WP:COATRACK. Steve Moore himself cannot be an RS, because WP:RS is used to judge sources, not people. So, whether he has been on the radio is not relevant. What is relevant is that the material cited comes from someone's personal website, and so it does not pass WP:RS.

Douglas Preston's testimony should be included in the area of criticism of the trial. It relates directly to the fact the interrogation was not taped and the abuse Amanda Knox has claimed during that interrogation. The criticism that Giuliano Mignini was facing his own trial for abuse of office but still allowed to be a working prosecutor is a main criticism of the case. Douglas Preston gives a very notable testimony of his own treatment by this prosecutor. I think his testimony is very important and deserves at least a line in the criticism portion.Jaberryhill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

I think you are confused between "sourced" and "attributed". Attributing in this context means making it clear who has said what is in the text. This should be done where there is opinion or statement of contentious facts. Your proposal is littered with things like "for reasons which remain unclear" and "has a controverial past", which are not appropriate things for us to say in Wikipedia's voice. We should only stray from neutral language where it is clear that we are using the wording in a source.

None of this gets to the main point though, which is about WP:WEIGHT. It is clear that there is not consensus to devote a third of the article to criticisms of the Italian legal process, when most editors feel that these criticisms are of relatively minor significance in the context of the article as a whole. It seems to me that a 1,500 word proposal which focuses on criticisms and does not offer balancing content is bound to fail. If you want to have a proposal taken more seriously, you should start with something bitesize that editors can critique and work with. --FormerIP (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The problems with the current article cannot be fixed with "bitesized" changes. In fact to do so might be seen as an endorsement of the legitimacy of the article. The above does summarize much (but not all) of what I think needs to be in the article. For some reason the footnotes didn't come over properly. The stuff I wrote is sourced deadnuts. Feel free to copy it into a sandbox and then the links will all work. WP:WEIGHT is indeed the issue we are looking at here. The current article fails the NPOV and WEIGHT test so egregiously that it raises issues of WP:BLP against Amanda Knox. I'm sorry but the material against Guede is all central to this case. They say she staged a break-in. The fact that in the previous month he (1) stole cell phones (2) broke windows with rocks (3) entered a second story window during a burglary (4) threatened somebody with a knife (all BTW without accomplices) would seem to be very important to the readers understanding of the case. Because reliable secondary sources are saying it, it can't be ignored.

Historians commonly use the term "unclear" and it is indeed appropriate in this context. Reliable sources have raised the same questions.

Douglas Preston is a primary source about issues with Mignini. Mignini's history of threatening people with defamation suits is well documented and is part the well deserved ridicule he faces. My post does not rely on Preston; in fact it quotes Van Sant and the Committee to Protect journalists. It also alludes to his criminal conviction. With more space I might have used Luca Turco(delerium), Judy Bachrach(famously incompetent), Trump (nut case), Momigliano (wildly speculating), and on and on. In substance you can't just say a source doesn't go in because you don't like what they say, and that is what is happening here.

Steve Moore is a reliable source. I do not understand what this means:"Steve Moore himself cannot be an RS, because WP:RS is used to judge sources, not people." All sources are people. As a point of fact the injusticeinperugia site is not "his" site. The radio appearance is significant because it provides confirmation by a news organization that his credentials are as he states. The suggestions here that he is an imposter raises issues of WP:BLP.PhanuelB (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, face it, there is no chance of a consensus developing in favour of your 1,500 word proposal. You need to take baby-steps, or else it is not worth bothering. For example, if you believe the Steve Moore stuff on injusticeinperugia should be considered a Reliable Source, why not post on WP:RS/N? --FormerIP (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. Just to clarify, for the purposes of WP:RS, people are not sources. Sources include newspaper articles, website content, books etc. So, saying that someone has appeared on the radio does not make their comments on a personal website useable. The main question is about where the information is taken from, not the identity of the author (although this can sometimes be relevant). This is a minor point, though. --FormerIP (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As a point of fact the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx site is not "his" site ... PhanuelB, if you know this as a fact then surely you can share Steve Moore's personal credential with everyone here? So they can be properly vetted and evaluated? Once again, I do not believe Steve Moore exists except as a ghostwriter for that biased, advocacy site. Jonathan (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, Phanuel, you should remember that a) BLP applies to talk pages too and b) Mignini is a living person. I invite you to rephrase your statements regarding him. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is indeed the issue we are looking at here. The current article fails the NPOV and WEIGHT test so egregiously that it raises issues of WP:BLP against Amanda Knox. Both this comment and the rest of the paragraph in which it appears provide additional proof that the proposed content misses the target of a reliable and neutral tone — instead, it pushes to blacken the reputation of one of the convicts and demonise a prosecutor (in other words, true WP:BLP violations in the making). Moreover, all this digresses quite substantially from the named main topic of the article — the thought that this tangential and problematic text should be permitted to deputise for the fine information currently present can be dismissed forthwith. Mignini's history of threatening people with defamation suits is well documented and is part the well deserved ridicule he faces. — As Salvio recommends, please remember to observe anti-defamation rules regarding this man. SuperMarioMan 14:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Some notes on Steve Moore. The allegation that he is an imposter is false. "surely you can share Steve Moore's personal credential with everyone here? So they can be properly vetted and evaluated?" Here is some background info on him. The only reason he is being accused of being an imposter (WP:BLP?) is because somebody doesn't like what he has to say:

"My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism...I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world."

"I do not know Amanda Knox. I have never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families."

"I will not accept a dime for anything I do on this case. When Amanda Knox goes home to her family, you will never hear from me again."

"(My credentials and supporting documents are available for review by reputable and credentialed journalists)."PhanuelB (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since he takes everything Knox says as truth (i.e. "Hypothetically, any trained investigator operating for many hours without rules, in a foreign language, slapping and threatening a naïve, frightened girl just out of her teens and in a foreign country, (denying her food, sleep and the right to an attorney and Consular advice) can get her to say just about anything.") he can't be regarded as a reliable source. Some of his points may have usefulness or they may not; but this isn't the place for that argument. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Following your argument here, we should remove any sources here which comment on the judge reports, since the judges took everything the prosecution took as truth. They should be just as invalid. Please use your arguments for both sides here. JSL5871 (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He is an expert/reliable source on interrogations and you are not.PhanuelB (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what he claims to be an expert on, someone who posits rumour, claims or opinions as facts is clearly not a reliable source on anything. It's as simple as that. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

He is an expert/reliable source on interrogations and you are not. It's not OK to say somebody is not a reliable source because he has a POV you disagree with.PhanuelB (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Defamation of Mignini or invitation to rephrase something? No. Name something that I didn't source properly. Truth is a defense to defamation; see the words of the 10 reliable sources in the section about BLP violations of AK. I might add that no one has produced a post war European judicial figure who has been more heavily criticized for his professional performance -- as opposed to extrajudicial actions such as WWII war crimes. Let me repeat the question asked in the section on Guede above: Would Meredith Kercher still be alive if the Italian police had done their job properly? That point is made by the reliable source I cited and may be the most important question in the whole case.PhanuelB (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than repeat yourself ad nauseam, could you point to the parts of the article which you claim violate WP:BLP as regards Knox? Note that when doing this, it is somewhat pointless to (a) just vaguely wave WP:NPOV around, as consensus here appears to agree that the article is currently neutral, and (b) continue to agitate for the inclusion of various commentators whose reliability and notability has already been discussed many times above. If there is any real issue regarding BLP, then it needs to be discussed, but you have not yet raised an issue apart from these two points, which have been rebutted. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, this is nonsense: "(My credentials and supporting documents are available for review by reputable and credentialed journalists". You are being disruptive. Bring in a reliable source or stop your soapboxing. Jonathan (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not being disruptive. You say he's an imposter (WP:BLP?) and I show you his credentials and that he's already offered to prove his background to those who need to see it. Do you really believe he didn't have the FBI career he claims? Here is a guy who has vastly more experience than the Italian investigators in the case (Italy doesn't have many murders) and he's calling for the criminal prosecution of the police on the case. This article is devoid of NPOV because all the reliable sources with a certain POV (by far the majority POV) been banned by a handful of editors who have a voting majority at this point in time.PhanuelB (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Such is the extent to which the point has been laboured to death that the continuation of this argument is becoming quite ridiculous. Do you really believe he didn't have the FBI career he claims? — of course, because without a burden of proof people can claim all sorts of "qualifications" which may or may not exist. An autobiographical statement assuring readers of being able to provide credentials if called on to do so is a dead ringer for failing WP:RS. Who knows just who this figure really is? The single disruptive POV on this talk page does not originate from other editors. Please redact the last sentence of the above post, which is an unacceptable WP:CIVIL violation. SuperMarioMan 01:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the credentials (or lack of) of Mr Moore are something we don't need to get into too deeply. However, we would need some sort of independent Reliable Source before we can assume that he has any. Phanuel, you are currently giving me the impression that you are interested in complaining about the behaviour of other editors, but uninterested in doing anything constructive with regards to the article. Why don't you challenge the idea that this material does not pass WP:RS by posting at WP:RS/N or else drop it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only is this yet another attack on other editors' motives (actually two, if you count your ludicrous claim that I believe Moore is not a reliable source because I don't agree with him), exactly the same for which you were blocked only five days ago - but it's also a complete falsehood, given that a simple scan of this page and the archives will reveal the simple policy-based reasons which many editors have given for not including certain items (from both "POVs") in the article. PhanuelB, I would seriously suggest you start being constructive on this page. If you post any more notices that attack contributors rather than discuss content, I will be forced to go to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This conversation regarding Steve Moore is disturbing. Are you stating that you will allow Steve Moore as a reliable source if his credentials are presented? If I present his credentials, I guarantee that you will find another reason to disallow his opinion. It's not his credentials that bother you, It's his message. It does not seem appropriate for you to suggest that Steve Moore does not exist. You have no proof of this. Why not stay neutral on the subject until you have facts to back up your assumptions? I have been silently following this discussion for quite some time now. This page is currently being controlled by a biased group. Your statements regarding Steve Moore certainly confirm this. You consider Barbie Nadeau a credible source but not Steve Moore? There is no excuse for this other that blatant bias. I would appreciate an answer to my question. If I have Steve Moore contact you to provide you with the necessary credentials, will you then consider him a reliable source? NathanWard1234 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd point out that User:PhanuelB has been blocked for the 3rd time, for his continued claims of bias on this page. Since you have carried on his attacks (your posting contains at least three claims that other editors are biased) I suggest you redact them before you find yourself blocked as well. Why is it that editors on this page are capable of handling themselves within Wikipedia policy except those agitating for a certain POV? I will of course assume good faith that PhanuelB being blocked and you returning to comment are not linked. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of threatening to ban anyone that disagrees with you, why don't you answer my question? If I have Steve Moore contact you to provide you with the necessary credentials, will you then consider him a reliable source? This article in its current form is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. NathanWard1234 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2010 **(UTC)

• Equally, instead of attacking other editors here, why not read the rest of the talk page to learn why numerous editors do not think Moore's commentary is reliable? He may well be an expert on interrogation, but anyone who writes an article which treats rumour and opinion as fact (as per this) cannot be treated as a reliable source regardless of his expertise. He clearly has a POV to push (i.e. that Knox is not guilty). The article already notes that a number of people have this POV; but views this extreme violate WP:UNDUE as well as WP:POV. We are not here to judge whether the trial was conducted correctly; only to report the facts. The way to go forward is for you to explain why exactly you believe the article is "an embarrassment" together with links to how you believe the content violates Wikipedia policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please explain to me how you can consider Barbie Nadeau a credible source and not Steve Moore. Barbie wrote an extremely biased book filled with proven misinformation regarding this case. Steve Moore has no more of an agenda than Barbie Nadeau. If you are going to apply the standards that you suggest, then you must apply those standards to all sources. NathanWard1234 (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I do not know whether Nadeau is a reliable source, because I haven't looked into it. The question was about whether Moore was reliable; when I looked at some of his writings, I (and others) came to the conclusion that his commentary was slanted enough not to be reliable. I have not been involved in the writing of the article, only as a neutral admin trying to keep order on this talkpage, which is quite difficult. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I've had a look at this. Two contentious statements in the article were sourced only to Nadeau, which may be problematic because they weren't of the "Nadeau claimed..." form. I've re-sourced one of these with a definitely reliable source, and removed the other one (about Knox's PR firm only dealing with journalists who promised to give positive coverage) because I can't find any other sources for it. Nadeau is still used to source two other statements, but they are both non-controversial (" Interpol traced a computer which (Guede) used in Germany to access Facebook in order to reply to a message from a Daily Telegraph journalist." and "Knox was, at the time of Kercher's murder, a 20-year-old University of Washington language student from Seattle, Washington"). However, as regards Nadeau's reliability, I am slightly surprised that "pro-Knox" editor PhanuelB would have referenced their book so many times in their proposed re-write (see the collapsed section above) if they were unreliable? Black Kite (t) (c) 09:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on Steve Moore because I've never read anything he's written about the case but, with regard to how we consider sources, the tests that I try to apply when adding material to the article are as follows:

• Firstly, has it been published in a reliable source? In the case of Nadeau, I think we are quoting stuff published in a book by a reputable publisher or in Newsweek magazine, so these would pass the test. In the discussion about Moore, it sounds like he has mainly contributed to blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. Has Moore actually been published by a reliable source?
• Secondly, consider the credibility of the writer with regard to what they are writing about. Nadeau is known to be a professional journalist, to have attended the trials in Perugia and is an Italian speaker. I would argue that this makes her a credible source for events in the courtroom, for example. If she made a judgement about forensic evidence, on the other hand, I think we would question whether it was appropriate to include in the article, because she is not an expert in that subject. From the earlier discussion, it sounds like Moore has claimed to be an expert, but has he established those credentials in a verifiable way?
• Thirdly, is the reliable source publishing fact or opinion? If, for example, the New York Times publishes an article in which someone expresses an opinion that the Earth is flat, we cannot cite that as evidence for terrestrial flatness. All we can reliably say is that a person has expressed the opinion. Encyclopedias are most concerned with facts rather than opinions.

So, has Steve Moore been published in a reliable source, has he verifiably established his credibility in his field and has he more on offer than just an opinion? Bluewave (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, obviously has an agenda here. And it's time he moved on to edit an article where he doesn't have such a personal bias. This has clearly reached the point of being ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.172.223 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the issue of Steve Moore as a WP:RS has been adequately resolved. I would like some clarification or summary as to exactly where the issue stands. I think it's critical that Steve Moore's information, as a subject matter expert, be included, whether quoted or paraphrased, in any encyclopedic article that professes to be a fair and unbiased as his criticisms of both the investigation and the prosecution's case against AK and RS represent a simple and easily understood (by an unsophisticated general public) summary of the INNOCENTS position. The inclusion of his points are especially critical as the Judges Report exists as a supporting document for the prosecutions case and as such is inherently biased toward the prosecution. Moreover, Moore's position represents to a large degree the American POV as opposed to the British or Italian POV. As the prosecutions case effectively acts as the British/Italian POV, Steve Moore's work is important in establishing that a strong and vigorous opposing view does in fact exist and is based upon the sound reasoning of individuals experienced in the fields of law and law enforcement.. I do understand your argument that published work in reliable publications are WP:RS and people as such, are not. However, quoting from WP guidelines directly: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source." I understand how Mr Moore's articles published only on an advocacy blog might not be considered WP:RS, however, as I read the above it would be allowable to use his quotes that have been recorded then broadcast by reliable sources. As Mr Moore has been interviewed as an expert witness (in effect) in crime scene analysis by a number of recognized news agencies (KIRO NEWS, at al), I assume you would have no problem if we cite the transcripts from those broadcasts as WP:RS. As for establishing Mr Moore's bonafides or even his existence, the WP guidelines do not state that any such verification is necessary, only that the source material be from a " reliable, third-party... with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" . Presumably, the reputation of the agency providing the source material is in itself enough vetting to meet the WP bar of reliability. I don't recall that Barbie Nadeau's bonafides as a reliable crime reporter were ever challenged even though her work's only real claim to being a WP:RS lay in the fact that she is employed by Newsweek. Otherwise, as I recall, she was a travel writer, wasn't she? I respectfully propose that, where applicable, all parties involved in the editing of this article cease any attempt to skew it toward an impression of either guilt or innocence, whether through misrepresentation, omission or downplaying critical points and instead focus on creating a truly informative article that properly acknowledges the opposing viewpoints surrounding this very contentious case. Tjholme (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's my views on this... The media have become accustomed to mixing up the reporting of factual events with the reporting of opinions. An encyclopedia, on the other hand, needs to distinguish the two very carefully. My own view is that the job of an encyclopedia is overwhelmingly to present the factual events. Regarding the use of sources for citing factual events, our presumption is that a professional writer, published by a mainstream publication is a reliable source (unless there is evidence to the contrary). That applies any of the reporters who covered the case, especially those such as Nadeau, who attended the court proceedings in person. So much for factual events. When it comes to opinions, every possible shade of opinion has probably been published, but they are just the opinions of individuals. Nadeau's opinion, for instance, is not really worth any more than yours or mine. So, despite the fact that Nadeau is published by a reliable source, I don't think we should include her opinions in the article. Coming to Steve Moore, if he is just another person expressing an opinion, his views are worth no more than yours, mine or Nadeau's and I can see no reason for including them, even if they have been reported in a reliable source. From what you say, though, Moore is claiming to be more than just another opinionated person: he is presenting himself as an expert in the field who is expressing an expert opinion. If we are considering him in this way, we need to apply the considerations similar to those relating to "scholarship" in WP:RS. Has he, for instance, been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources? Has he been cited by other experts, etc? I don't know the answers to these questions, but the onus is on those who want to include Moore's analysis to establish his credentials as a noted expert and not just another opinionated commentator.

I also disagree with some of Tjhlme's points: for instance, the statement that "the Judges Report exists as a supporting document for the prosecutions case and as such is inherently biased toward the prosecution" is a personal opinion and I'm sure the Judges would not agree with the accusation of bias. Likewise, I can't accept the idea that there is an "American POV" characterised by Moore, and a "British or Italian POV" characterised by the prosecutions case. Bluewave (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section Continued

FormerIP writes:

"Phanuel, you are currently giving me the impression that you are interested in complaining about the behavior of other editors, but uninterested in doing anything constructive with regards to the article."

The collapsed criticism section above defines in significant detail what I believe belongs in the article. It is not soapboxing. It is all sourced deadnuts and no one has identified anything specific that isn't right. Little edits is not what this article needs. What we have here is a total breakdown of Wikipedia's system and the result is a page that blatantly violates WP:BLP against Amanda Knox. It's that bad. The writing style is painfully bad and the article is mired in irrelevant detail that carefully avoids the big picture about why the subject is notable. The problem is that so many reliable sources have condemned the tribunal and the article says nothing about it. Here is a particularly bad passage:

"A defense witness in the Knox and Sollecito trial said that Guede told him of having been caught by police with property stolen from the witness's office, but that he had purchased this property legitimately.[55] A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan has claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises."

That passage is painfully bad. I am prohibited from commenting on why I think this passage was written in this way. I believe the evidence speaks for its self and the conclusions are obvious. The fact is that Guede did all sorts of things without accomplices in the weeks prior to the murder that were similar to what was found at the crime scene. As pointed out by numerous reliable sources banned from this article these arguments are central to why Amanda Knox is unlikely to have participated in the murder. PhanuelB (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what specifically do you think is bad about the passage you have quoted? --FormerIP (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And please remember that Guede too is entitled to WP:BLP. You're very worried about BLP-vios regarding Amanda Knox — which is good! — and yet you keep violating that same policy when it comes to Mignini and Guede. Please, stop. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have the problem completely back to front. You say "the article is mired in irrelevant detail that carefully avoids the big picture about why the subject is notable". Yet the previous version of the article did exactly that - it was mired in irrelevant detail about the minutiae of the trial, much of which had been chosen by editors to give the impression that Knox was innocent. The current version of the article does no such thing - it does not attempt to pass judgement on the correctness or otherwise of the verdict - i.e. it is NPOV - and our policies state very clearly that this is how it must stay. Any edit which attempts to use Wikipedia to espouse an opinion - whether on Knox's guilt or innocence or anything else - must not be allowed to stand. That's how Wikipedia works. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite has a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. When numerous reliable sources are saying that that the trial is a sham, that must be a part of the article. That is the sole reason that this whole story is notable BTW. In the right circumstances Wikipedia can indeed pass judgment on whether someone is guilty or not (in many murder cases, guilt is not in question.) This article should not advocate innocence or guilt but it should summarize in some detail what reliable sources say about the subject. In its current form this article advocates guilt because it carefully omits the discussion of innocence. The details of why these reliable sources argue for innocence cannot be selectively kept out of the article. The WP:BLP violation against Amanda Knox is that there is virtually no mention of the vast criticism that this was not a fair trial. The previous article was not well written either. Both efforts are a camel that resulted from a committee trying to design a horse. Both articles completely ignored the big picture issues. PhanuelB (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, the fact that numerous reliable sources are saying that the trial is a sham (or whatever exactly it is that they're saying) does not mean that the fact that the trial is a sham should be part of the article. It means, rather, that the fact that criticsms of the trial have been made should be included in the article. I'm sure you can understand this distinction, and you can see from the article that this has been done. On the general question of weight, consensus is against you (ie what we have is enough). If you have specific critisms of the article as it stands (eg "the source doesn't say what the article says it says", "that's a weasel word", "that's not an RS"), then make them and they can be discussed. But very broad criticisms don't seem to me to have much point to them. If you want a complete "pro-Knox" re-write, you're not going to get it. If you want to address flaws in the article, you're not going to get that either unless you specify what you think there are. --FormerIP (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who oppose this article will get what arbitration eventually gives them. That will occurr at a time and a place of their choosing. I have looked very closely at the record for the banning of the two other pro innocence editors and I saw no valid reason for banning them. You can't fix a problem like this by banning those who have a POV that you oppose. PhanuelB (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to get on with the arbitration process then, instead of just making these vague threats of arbitration.  pablo 16:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly an administrator with a number of years experience has less understanding of how Wikipedia works than you. Sigh. This is an article about a murder, not an article about a trial. The murder is not notable purely because a lot of people have a lot of things to say about it; it was notable even before the trial started. Of course the controversy should be mentioned, and it is - there's a whole section about it. However, to skew the the article by attempting to cram it full of everything ever said by any commentator would be completely WP:UNDUE, as you've been told dozens of times now. Your inability to understand this very basic concept of Wikipedia is becoming tiresome, frankly. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact in this case an administrator "with years of experience" is wrong about Wikipedia's rules. This article is notable because of questions about whether a female college student from the US got a fair trial. The controversy over the fairness of the trial is notable, the murder is not. Murders happen every day. The concerns over WP:BLP against Amanda Knox are grave; the concerns about WP:BLP against Mignini and Guede are without merit. The effort is not to cram it full of what every commentator said. Some of the ones I cite have been broadcast on cable television channels that reach 200 million households in 200 countries and they have been choosen to comment by some of the most important news organizations in the world. The claim that reliable sources are being banned because they hold a specific POV is fully supported by the evidence and is legitimate.PhanuelB (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you believe that BLP issues only apply to Knox probably explains exactly why you shouldn't be attempting to influence this article. BLP applies to everyone. Moreover, this is merely another of your "I am right and everyone else is wrong" postings. You've had the issues explained to you enough times; now (a) start an arbitration case, or (b) make useful specific proposals, section by section, of what you believe should be altered in the article so that they can be discussed here. If you're not prepared to do either of those things, there appears to be no point in you merely repeating arguments that have been consistently rejected by other editors. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that there should be a whole new article - The Amanda Knox Trial. That article could go into depth about the trial itself. In regards to "This is an article about a murder, not an article about a trial."; the murder may be notable by itself but the trial is very important and deserves to have it's own article or at least a place on Wikipedia. My thought about this case is that the controversy surrounding the media betrayal and trial of Amanda Knox have had far more attention and interest than the murder alone.Jaberryhill (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This has already been tried, and was merged back into this article as a WP:POVFORK. The deletion discussion is here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trial of Knox and Sollecito. Articles on Knox herself have met the same fate, the latest one being redirected here for the same reason (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox). Given the problems with certain viewpoints on this article (at least two editors have been topic-banned or blocked so far for disruption here), spreading the issue across more than one article would double the issues that editors trying to uphold WP:NPOV are having. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because a decision was made in the past to merge a separate article about Knox & Sollecito into this one doesn’t mean that decision can’t be revisited if people think it is warranted. There have been some developments since then and the controversy continues to rage. If that wasn’t so, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. As has been said, this case is most notable for the international uproar and controversy it has created. The people raising serious questions about the validity and fairness of the trial are not limited to a “lunatic fringe”, but include many responsible and credible persons. People who turn to Wikipedia to learn what all the fuss is about deserve to be given an understanding of why so many people are crying foul. If a sufficient discussion of those reasons is too much for this article, then perhaps another article should be created. And I strongly disagree with those who want to discount the sources cited by PhanuelB; e.g. Steve Moore, CBS 48 Hours , etc. I think some people are looking at this the wrong way, i.e. using the wrong standard to judge whether these sources are “reliable”. If you are looking to quote a RS to judge whether the verdict was correct and who is really guilty, well then good luck trying to find an article or documentary done by GOD! I don’t think there is any source that everyone considers reliable for that purpose. But these sources are absolutely reliable if used for the purpose of documenting the controversy. Editors should not attempt to pursue an agenda to prove or disprove guilt or to pass judgment on the Italian judicial system; but the article is incomplete and inaccurate if it (or another related article) does not fully present the issues behind the debate. Kermugin (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there have been very little developments since then and probably won't be until proceedings start again. Also, you are missing the point a bit; we do not judge whether the verdict was correct. We report the verdict, and we point out that some people disagree with it. All that information is already in the article. We also do not report everyone's opinions on the issue. To take Steve Moore as an example; he may or may not be an expert on interrogation, but since he wasn't actually at the interrogation, and on the InjusticeInPerugia website he reports Knox's claims of being assaulted as fact (as well as other rumours), he clearly can't be considered reliable. As for the trial article; it would need to be written in userspace first, I think. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: There is no WP:BLP violation against Mignini or Guede whatsoever. You are invited to show where you think there is one. Please take a look at the citations in the collapsed edit I made. There is significant information that is not displayed on the talk page but is displayed on a sandbox page.PhanuelB (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a reference to your last comment on the subject of Guede, where you seem to be expressing only your own opinion and going directly against the findings of the court. --FormerIP (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Realiable sources say that the "findings of the court" are a sham. That is what is supposed to be in the article. Perhaps you could name something in the "Failure to Arrest Guede" section that is not fully sourced?PhanuelB (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Phanuel, you should think about whether it is time to stop flogging a dead horse. You'r not going to get anywhere or do anyone any good with your current strategy. Experienced editors are telling you you are breaching policies, which is something you ought to pay attention to or you may end up getting sanctioned. It think it would be better if, instead, you changed tactics. If any changes to the article are to be successfully made, this won't happen by you just trying to make your case that the prosecution was "a sham". You need to propose realistic changes to the article, one by one, stop commenting on other editors and focus on details and sources rather than just banging on about the terrible injustice of it all. You should also think about the difference between fact and opinion, which (IMO) is where your proposal above falls down most significantly. --FormerIP (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am generally more interested in listening and learning rather than arguing at the moment. I think I understand both sides fairly well. But I must say that I do find a good deal of what Phanuel says valuable and worth considering. The article does seem to lack a NPOV right now. At the same time I am not sure that it does enough to establish that its subject is notable enough to warrant a wiki article of its own. We should be more accommodating and less dismissive of some of the concerns that have been raised in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PietroLegno (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)