Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Biased language

To explain why I think so many people are upset about this article, I just wanted to analyze the use of a single word "testified". This is a strong word, carrying connotations of speaking solemnly under oath in a court of law. It can be contrasted with weaker words such as "claimed" or "maintained" or "said". Let's look at some appearances of "testimony", "testified", etc.

1. "At 8:40 pm on the night of the murder, witness testimony placed Knox at Sollecito's flat." - negative to Knox and Sollecito

2. "a police officer testified that Knox had only been questioned "firmly but politely"" - negative to Knox and Sollecito

3. "An officer testified that shards of glass from the broken window were found on top of a computer and clothes that had been strewn around the room, suggesting that the window had been broken after the room had been ransacked." - negative to Knox and Sollecito

4. "Sollecito maintained that he was at his apartment, using his computer, but police computer analysts testified that his computer had not been used between 9:10 on the evening of the murder and 5:32 the next morning." - negative to Knox and Sollecito

5. "Their version of events was contradicted by a homeless man, who testified that he had seen Knox and Sollecito chatting animatedly on a basketball court," - negative to Knox and Sollecito

6. "A Perugia shopkeeper testified that Knox had gone to his supermarket at 7:45 on the morning after the murder, at a time when Knox was, according to her account, still at Sollecito's." - negative to Knox and Sollecito

Do you see the overall trend in this passage? Instances of claims by Knox and Sollecito are things that they "maintained" about their "version" of events. Claims by others are "testimony" or things that they "testified" to.

There are some positive instances of "testified" for Knox and Sollecito, but the overwhelming trend is to treat anything they say as "claims" or things they "maintained". The only instance of Knox "testifying" is this: "Knox testified that she regarded Kercher as her friend and had no reason to kill her." But we expect that from killers, no?

What's important is to follow the sources. Let me give one example in more depth.

We say: "Sollecito maintained that he was at his apartment, using his computer, but police computer analysts testified that his computer had not been used between 9:10 on the evening of the murder and 5:32 the next morning." Sollecito maintained it, but the experts testified. What does the source say? It doesn't say that anyone testified - it treats both sides fairly using parallel language. Everyone in the story "said" or "told" their story.

Notice that I have only analyzed, in only minor detail, one aspect of the language in the story. Language is layered, complex, meaningful, interesting. The words that we use carry weight. When all the words in a story line up in a strong general direction, we give a strong impression of someone's editorial perspective. This is not best practice for Wikipedia.

Notice that I have not, in this short note, explored issues relating to selectivity in sources. That too, is an important issue, and I will continue to research so that I might comment in an informed manner on that as well.

But I trust that everyone will quickly agree - even if you don't agree with every aspect of what I have said here - that language of "testimony" for the prosecution with language of "claimed" and "maintained" and "said" for the defense is inappropriate bias - and especially so when it is something that we have added, not in the sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This may be fair comment. Change "testified" to "said" to "maintained" as much as you like. --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel like all of those (1-6) are merely presenting the facts. We can't argue every single piece of evidence, and we can present what happened in a neutral tone, as we've done. If there is evidence that contradicts the neutral statements that can be incorporated without becoming a retrial of such evidence, we can add it. If there's minor wordsmithing to be done, smith it.LedRush (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There's actually a guideline WP:CLAIM about this. Wnt (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Testimonies opposed by other testimonies: Unfortunately, the word "testified" is correct for statements which the witnesses said in court, or when Knox testifed in court, whereas Sollecito did not testify (on the stand), but he did make impromptu statements such as saying that the watery blood-footprint on the blue bathmat was not his. However, in general, the article had been worded, last spring, to balance the offset of one witness testimony as opposed by another testimony, such as:

"The shopkeeper testified to seeing a woman with intense blue eyes at the store, but then he testified as only seeing the side of her face, unable to explain knowing the color of her eyes. Sollecito's former housekeeper also worked at that store, on the morning noted, and testified she did not see Knox there. About the possible use of bleach, the police testified about concerns of a clean-up, but Sollecito's new housekeeper testified there was no smell of bleach at his apartment, and the 2 bottles of bleach had the same level of contents as when she last used them. The postal police officer testified he did not step into the room to contaminate the scene, but Luca A. who pushed the door open testified he saw the officer enter, and Paola G. testified the officer entered."

Anywhere there was a witness testifying, there was probably another of the 200 witnesses (at some time) to refute those claims: some witnesses admitted to payment for media interviews. Sollecito had computer people testify that his computer was used stand-alone for a longer period of time, but I did not find any testimony to refute the Internet Service Provider (ISP) reporting a long period of inactivity over the network. Complicating those issues, there has been talk that Sollecito's computer was used/modified (by some unknown person) while he was away at the police station, being interrogated before being arrested. In a case like that, the implications of tampering are so strong, that it is likely sufficient to merely say some expert "claimed" his computer was used during the night he was interrogated. Last year, the article's wording had been chosen to try to offset the opposing viewpoint in similarly strong wording. Knox had planned to work at the pub Le Chic that night, and Sollecito had planned to drive a friend on errands that night, but Knox's boss left a message to cancel work and Sollecito's friend cancelled the car trip (both of which were confirmed by witness testimonies). The defense used those events to show no evidence of a pre-planned 3-person "let's go torture the roommate" for the night. Bottomline: The balance in the article comes from having more text to oppose each point, rather than just changing a few words. Plus, there are WP:RS sources to refute almost any point made on either side (which means yet another footnote to balance a claim), so that is why the article became so huge and would need to be huge to explain all those concerns. When explaining the alphabet, Wikipedia cannot omit most letters in "ABC...XYZ" simply to make the alphabet article smaller, and WP should not omit major points of evidence to make the Knox/Sollecito text smaller. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.3.25.236, 9 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} <--At trial the shopkeeper's testimony was contradicted by the testimony of workers who were also at the shop at that time.[63] -->

<-- At trial, a shop employee testified that she did not see Amanda -->

The reference is wrong. The correct reference is the Massei Report. Only one employee said she did not see Amanda Knox. Only one employee testified she didn't see Amanda. (of course, she can't "contradict" she can only say she didn't see her.) Please edit; this is not only incorrect but an attempt to alter the record.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.25.236 (talk • contribs)

I had a quick look for other sources (newspaper articles) to see what they say on this matter. There are lots of references to the shopkeeper who spoke for the prosecution, but I couldn't find a reference to the shop employee who spoke for the defence. The Massei report certainly mentions them and I agree with the anonymous poster that our wording seems odd. A shop assistant can only testify that they didn't see Knox, which is not the same is "contradicting" the person who says they did see her. The original poster seems to have offered a proposed new version of the text but put it in a hidden comment. I have taken the liberty of deleting a '!' from their post to make this visible. I hope this is what they originally intended. If not I apologise! Bluewave (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that edit, Bluewave. The relevant part of the Massei report is p 83-4 in the English version [1], which seems to suggest that having "workers" in the plural is wrong. The use of "contradict" is obviously also not in keeping with NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rereading my post, it looks a bit garbled. When I said that the Massei report mentions "them", I meant "them" as a singular pronoun, not implying several people. Also when I mentioned my edit of the IP poster's comment, all I did was to change "<!-- At trial..." to "<-- At trial..." so that the text above was not hidden. Hope that's clearer! Anyway, it looks like FormerIP has edited the article to correct the error. Bluewave (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

With that taken care of, there's no more need for the edit requested template. :) Banaticus (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On Nov. 19, 2007 the shopkeeper was asked directly by a police officer if he had seen the suspects on the morning of the murder and he said no. Should we mention that the witness changed his story? --Footwarrior (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide the source for this statement.TMCk (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

[2] It doesn't say he was directly asked if she was there, but it does say that police questioned him and he did not mention Knox coming into the store that morning. It seems he came forward a couple months later at the urging of reporters.LedRush (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So, are we ok with adding something, or not?LedRush (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Footwarrior to provide a source for his statement above. Yours doesn't do that and I'm not sure what you want to add to what is already there (statement of the shop-keeper and worker).TMCk (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Um...I've provided a source that basically says the same thing. We'd add something that says what the source says (not what Footwarrior stated). Is that generally ok, or are there issues? Perhaps I should just be bold and add it?LedRush (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the source, it states that the other coworker testified that Knox didn't come into the store (not that the worker didn't see her), and, therefore, that testimony does contradict the owner's testimony. We should add that back. Please note, we have no problem stating that the alibi's were "contradicted" in this section when we are talking about prosectution evidence.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try from start. Footwarrior asked "Should we mention that the witness changed his story?" but apparently there is no source that would support such statement. Not saying anything on one occasion but on another is not changing his story. Now the article already includes both, the owner's and the worker's testimony (made in court I guess).
"A Perugia shopkeeper testified that Knox had gone to his supermarket at 7:45 on the morning after the murder, at a time when Knox was, according to her account, still at Sollecito's.[62] A worker in the shop testified that she had not seen Knox."
What exactly would you like to change/remove/add?TMCk (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the other witness testified that Knox was not in the shop that morning (not that s/he didn't see her there). That is a direct contradiction. Furthermore, we could add something like: "Though the shopkeeper did not mention Knox entering his store the morning after the murder when he was first questioned by police," in front of "in court he testified that Knox had gone to his supermarket at 7:45 that morning, at a time when Knox was, according to her account, still at Sollecito's."LedRush (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just read through the section of the Massei report about this. The judge noted the fact that the shopkeeper had not mentioned Knox when first questioned and he (the judge) seems to have investigated the shopkeeper's credibility. It says, amongst other things "It was discovered that Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle [the shopkeeper] if, on the morning of November 2, he saw Amanda Knox in his shop. He was asked – so Quintavalle recalled - about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Mr. Quintavalle did not say anything about having seen Amanda Knox on the morning of November 2, 2007 in his shop because he was not questioned about this...."

So the court was satisfied that the witness was reliable - had not mentioned Knox because he had not been asked! It also says "witness Ana Marina Chiriboga, at the time an employee in Quintavalle’s shop, said that Quintavalle asked her whether that morning she had seen Amanda and Chiriboga answered no." I don't see that as contradicting him. Bluewave (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh...I just had a long response deleted. Oh well. The gist of it was that I'd still like to add something because I believe both the sequence and the substance of events is highly relevant to a reader. I agree that even though we have a source that supports the "contradict" language, we have another which doesn't support it, so we should leave it out unless a majority of sources support the language or a source points to the actual testimony (the difference between affirmatively stating that Knox wasn't there and merely stating that she didn't see her there). I'll try to put a modest proposal together, but it probably won't happen immediately.LedRush (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the following:

However, the shopkeeper did not initially tell police that Knox had been in his market that day,^[1] and first informed police of his recollection several months after the crime occurred.^[2]

As stated above, I think the sequence of events and the substance of the statements is important. However, I've tried to ensure that there is no inference that the shopkeeper was asked about Knox (and said she wasn't there) by not mentioning the initial interview that was conducted by police. All my statement says is that he didn't tell police day 1, he told them several months later. That provides important timing information but does not imply any incorrect facts (for example, that police asked him about Knox day 1 and he said she wasn't there). Anyway, I've tried to be mindful of the concerns raised above.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what others think about this, but my own opinion is that drawing attention to something that didn't happen does sound like we're making a point that it should have happened. I'd favour something like "However, the shopkeeper was not initially asked if Knox had been in his shop that day, and only informed police of his recollection several months after the crime occurred". Anyone else have a view? Bluewave (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment completely, and originally tried to work something like that in, but it became bulky. How about: "However, during the initial police interview the shopkeeper was not initially asked if Knox had been in his shop that day, and only informed police of his recollection concnerning Knox several months after the crime occurred."? This uses your general formulation, but adds back the idea of an initial police interview (which I had deleted so as not to imply that the shopkeeper had changed his story- that's not an issue in this formulation.) I've also added "concerning Knox" for the same reason: so as not to imply he changed his initial story.LedRush (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bluewave, I've gone ahead and made that edit...would you mind putting in the cite from the Massei Report after the comma?LedRush (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes I'll find the cite, but can't right now - I was just sneaking a quick look at Wikipedia in between some real-life responsibilities....like my wife's birthday! Bluewave (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've added a ref to page 76 of the Massei report (it's p.84 in the translation). Bluewave (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

On page 156 of Amanda Knox's Appeal [3] are direct quotes from Inspector Volturno's testimony on March 13, 2009 regarding his interview of the shopkeeper shortly after the murder. The shopkeeper after being shown photos of Amanda and Raffaele said that Raffaele was a regular customer and that Amanda had been in the shop a couple of time in his company. The article statement that he wasn't asked about Knox is incorrect. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is probably some legalese parsing of words going on in the Massei report, though it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Perhaps the shopkeeper was not directly asked about whether Knox was there that morning, but he was obviously asked generally about her. We need to present both sides of this, or think of a more fair, abbreviated version.LedRush (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to use the Massei report as a reference then it would only be fair to include the counter arguments present in the appeals. Raffaele's appeal has a lot to say about the shopkeeper.

"Further evidence of the numerous contradictions incurred in the decision of the 1st degree, also emerges with indisputable proof from further passages in the Motivations. The Court held that, "The version given by Amanda Knox whereby she remained with Raffaele Sollecito at the house on Corso Garibaldi from the evening of 1 November to 10am the following morning" (p73) is contradicted by the statements made by Marco Quintavalle at the hearing of 21 March 2009. At that sitting the witness reported seeing Amanda entering his shop in Corso Garibaldi the morning of 2 November at around 7.45am. Despite being heard immediately after the murder (transcript of the hearing on 21 march 2009. p. 82), Quintavalle revealed this fact for the first time only in November 2008, i.e. one year after the murder! Even the circumstances which led to this new witness, should, at least, suggest the need for great caution in assessing its reliability.

In reality, this precaution was not observed in any way. The testimony was, in fact, deemed credible because "Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle if on the morning of 2 November he saw Amanda Knox in his shop. He asked him - as Quintavalle recalled - about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Quintavalle did not say he saw Amanda Knox the morning of the 2 November both because he was not asked and because, as the same Quintavalle stated, he considered the fact insignificant (...) The witness provided a precise description of what he noticed on the morning of 2 November; and certain physical features of the girl (blue eyes and white face) together with the unusual hour, could well have fixed what Quintavalle said he saw in his memory" (p75 and 76 of the sentencing report).

The above example is merely the contradictory result of a partial reading of the testimony of the witness. Specifically, at the hearing of 21.03.2009 (transcript, p.83), Sollecito's defence asked: "The specific question is this. Did Inspector Volturno come with photographs of Amanda and Raffaele?" Quintavalle responded "With photographs, no, I don't think so". Inspector Volturno questioned about the same set of circumstances, however, declared "A few days later we tracked down the Conad-Margherita shop situated at the beginning of Corso-Garibaldi, where the owner recognized the photographs we showed him, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer of the store, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his company" (transcript of the hearing on 13.03.2009, pp.177 and 178). Yet, on being asked "Did Inspector Volturno ask you if you knew Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox?" Quintavalle replied, "About Amanda they didn't ask me, that is, they did not ask me if Amanda came to the shop" (transcript of the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.83). This fact was contradicted by the declarations from his assistant, Ana Marina Chiriboga, who, when asked by Knox's defence, "When the police came and spoke with Marco Quintavalle, they didn't speak with you the first time. What did Marco Quintavelle say about this interview? Of what did they speak?", replied, "Nothing, he told us that they asked him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele. Since we had already seen a bit on TV, so we commented" (transcript from the hearing on 26.06.2009, p.54). And again, to the question of the defence, "So they had arrived. What did he say?", "That he knew them", Chiriboga replied precisely, "Yes, ah, they wanted to know if he knew them? Him, yes, he said he knew them, but I said I didn't, also my colleague said that..." (transcript hearing 26.06.2009, p.55), and to the further question, "Quintavalle replied that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, yes?" the witness replied "Yes" (transcript of the hearing 26.06.2009, p.56). Therefore, we do not see how it is possible for the motivations to affirm that Quintavalle did not report to have seen Amanda Knox the morning of 2 November only because he was not asked" (pp 75 and 76 of the motivations).

This prompts two observations. If it is true that Quintavalle provided a precise description of the girl's entry into the shop (who is assumed to be Amanda Knox), it is strange that a person with a 'strong' visual memory (Quintavalle's declarations, hearing 21.03.2009, p.78), when asked "Did you notice what eye colour Sollecito has"? (transcript 21.03.2009, p.115) responded "I believe they were brown, but I'm not quite sure, really no, I didn't notice, I didn't notice that, I don't remember", although Raffaele was his regular customer. To highlight the importance of this fact, furthermore, we should acknowledge that if Quintavalle was impressed by the physiognomy of Amanda, because it is characterized by blue eyes on a white face, then analogously he should have been equally impressed by that of Sollecito: a boy with such clear blue eyes and so fair a complexion. Moreover, Quintavalle remembered all this despite not having seen Amanda from the front but turned three quarters, "Then she entered, I saw her let's say, three quarters left, three quarters of the left side. I didn't see her from the front (...)" (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.75)." Furthermore it also states: "The Motivations, furthermore, seem to have ignored this fundamental fact: that in his declarations Marco Quintavalle also affirmed having seen Amanda in his shop a couple of weeks before 2 November (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.76), this time in the company of Raffaele. In this regard it has to be noted that this fact cannot in any way be true, since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had known each other - and this fact is certain and conclusive - just a week before the murder. Nonetheless, the memory of the witness is so sharp as to enable him to describe even the clothes worn on that occasion by the two young people: "[Raffaele] had light clothing, a light coloured shirt, beige, some similar colour, also light trousers. Then I noticed that strangely he had no glasses on that evening (...). She was wearing jeans, then had a pair of boots let's say Timberland make (...) she had a sweater (...) of wool or heavy cotton (...) red or something similar" (transcription of 21 March 2009, p.77).

In this regard, following the reasoning of the court, this episode also - noting the unusual hour ("one evening, I had closed the shop, it was a few minutes past 8: p.76) and the particular features of the girl (blue eyes and light skin) - should have remained fixed in the memory of the witness. Yet, strangely, this did not happen, since Quintavalle claimed not to have recognized Amanda on the morning of 2 November (only a few days after that first meeting), because it was as if seeing her for the first time, "for me I didn't know this girl" (transcript of 21 March 2009, p.72).

The motivation has downplayed the fact that Quintavalle decided to speak with investigators only a year after the crime was committed. According to the defence, however, this fact is symptomatic - in addition to those things already mentioned - of the unreliability of his testimony. Quintavalle only decided to make contact with prosecutors after intense pressure from the journalist Antioco Fois, a regular customer of his shop. These statements then allowed the witness to participate in broadcasts on national TV networks. A fact that, in the deposition, Quintavalle sought to play down. In fact, when asked the question "Don't you remember an interview done with TG2?" he replied, "TG2? TG2 came and filmed me in secret, I said: 'Look I have nothing to say, nothing to declare'. Then with the camera they took over the counter of the shop [i.e. presumably the camera was now visible] and I told them that they should do nothing, they had to go" (transcript of the hearing 21.03.2009, p.111); while in this regard, the assistant Chiriboga affirmed that Quintavalle had reported having given this interview and, when asked by the President "So what did Quintavalle say about this interview?" the witness responded "He said: 'I have been interviewed', we said: 'But at what time?' He said he was interviewed after we went out to lunch" (transcript from the hearing of 26.06.2009, p.70).

It is clear, therefore, that a memory of more than a year after the fact would require very careful assessment of its reliability, while making it more necessary to find further supporting evidence. In reality, the testimony of Quintavalle is completely unreliable as it was not even confirmed by the statements of his employees, on the morning of 2 November. Ultimately, Quintavalle, like Curatola, is nothing but a witness produced by the mass media. Not infrequently, following the outcry caused by a particular incident in the news, witnesses emerge whose statements, rather than being the result of direct knowledge, convey a 'mass media synthesis' of what has been learned from reporting in newspapers and on television. In spite of this the Court has erroneously considered this witness reliable, extrapolating and emphasizing only a few of his statements and forgetting, however, those that would lead to diametrically opposite conclusions."

I am not sure how you could condense the counter argument down here but I don't see many references or links to the appeals (available on my docstoc page in Italian and Google translations-there are also links to the Italian PDF's at IIP and at other places). The above quotes are a human translation. There is also a link to the TV interview with the shopkeeper that is referred to in the appeal argument. Please excuse formatting problems, long post, etc. My first comment/edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseMontague (talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Some Thoughts Upon Coming Back to Wikipedia

My opinion of Wikipedia has improved markedly over the past few days as Mr. Wales has taken an active and thoughtful interest in this case. DreamGuy’s analysis of the situation could not be fairer or more accurate.

If Mr. Wale’s involvement here has been treated with skepticism and hostility, you must imagine what it was like for those who, like me, are mere nobodies who took exception to the slant of the article. I have a doctorate and two masters degrees and have done research for a living all my adult life. I joined Wikipedia with the idea that I might actually be able to make a useful contribution. Last September I found myself on the point of being banned because in frustration I had said some intemperate things. Instead I just walked away, vowing never to sign in again. I spent my time instead informing my friends and colleagues in the teaching profession why Wikipedia could break down in the face of controversy and fanaticism, and I used the Kercher-Knox-Sollecito article as my prime example. Quite honestly I have seldom if ever in a long career witnessed the levels of sophistry and intellectual dishonesty that I witnessed here.

Those are strong words and I am prepared to write a lengthy white paper detailing both the flaws in the article and in the process--if need be. For the talk page, let me just express some thoughts on goals for the article and some strategies for reaching them.

1) All of us must accept the fact that the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are genuinely controversial. This is as important a “fact” as there is about this issue. The idea that the concerns about the case could have been manufactured by some tiny Seattle public relations firm is intellectually embarrassing, as is the notion that the controversy is a manifestation of the “cult of Foxy Knoxy.” This case is controversial because credentialed experts, with access to all of the case documents, have examined the evidence and found it wanting. 2) All of must accept the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case here. There is not a single argument made by the prosecution for which the defense has not formulated a plausible and convincing rebuttal. They have done this with everything—statements, witnesses, DNA, luminol, computer and cell phone records, the so called “staged break-in”—all of it.

If a Wikipedia reader comes to this article and gets the impression that there is no controversy and that the defense failed to address the main prosecution allegations, we have failed miserably.

In order to make satisfactory progress from here, I would argue that several things have to happen.

1. There has to be a general amnesty for all Wikipedia editors who were banned. I would never say that things did not get out of hand at times, but the provocation was extreme. And the fact is that the administrators of this article have succeeded in banning some of their best informed and most effective opponents. We need them back to make the article better. 2. I would recommend that Mr. Wales appoint a single, genuinely neutral administrator to oversee a substantial revision to the article. This person should be tough minded but fair to all. Charity toward all and guff from none should be the motto. 3. I believe it would be best to put the information on Meredith Kercher in one article but have a separate Wikipedia article entitled “The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.” This approach was accepted in the Laci/Scott Peterson case and it works well. 4. We must have a genuine commitment to make progress toward a substantial revision each day. That is, there can be no stalling, no putting a comma in in the morning and taking it out in the afternoon. The new administrator has to crack the whip and get both sides to act in good faith and move quickly. 5. We need to include an adequate discussion of a number of closely related issues, specifically:

--The powerful evidence against Rudy Guede and the history of his encounters with the police in the 30 days prior to the meeting. --The conviction of prosecutor Mignini, with specific reference to the sentencing report detailing his felonious abuse of office. --The fact that under the vagaries Italian law certain parties, notably the victim’s family and their lawyer, have a strong financial incentive in seeing the conviction sustained. This is tough but fair commentary under the circumstances.

My biases are, of course, perfectly clear. But I truly do understand that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to rehash the defense brief. I recommend that we use a method employed by a group of distinguished Arab and Israelite scholars who tried to write a joint account of the history of the Middle East. We must build the article around the conceded facts while briefly describing the areas where we are apart, I realize full well that we cannot resolve the issue here and we can’t debate each issue ad nauseum. If there is a genuine commitment to turning this terribly slanted article into a text book example of how Wikipedia works at its best, I am willing to spend a considerable amount of time helping out. PietroLegno (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. I have not been here in months because of the environment but now that it is improving, I'm ready to edit. With fairness.--Lilome (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend that those who have since departed and returned upon hearing this Good News proceed slowly and confine their edits to the talk page. If your points are valid and backed up by sources, other hopefully uninvolved editors will add them. The worst thing anyone could do would be to incite edit warring in the midst of productive discussion. Obviously those who do so will be blocked anyway, but suffice to say that those who don't want that to happen can still make great contributions through their knowledge of sources on the talk page. Ocaasi^c 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you both. I have no intention at all of editing the main article until we have an agreement on how we can fairly proceed. Having said this, I think fairness demands that there must be a broad amnesty for editors banned as part of an non-neutral process. PietroLegno (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

[EC]While I generally agree, I don't think that editing the article in a constructive way, with reliable sources, is an "incitement to edit warring" and definitely should not lead to blocks. Furthermore, there is no reason to consider the group of editors who patrol this page to be uninvolved (and somehow immune for the odd blocking threat for merely making constructive edits) while anyone who thinks the article could improve both its scope and it's neutrality are involved and require heavy handed threats. While I understand the need to move slowly and develop consensus, I think this type of comment is a manifestation of exactly why these issues fester and never get resolved.LedRush (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant no past involvement, not uninvolved as in completely neutral. There's a particular risk of inciting old squabbles here. And not all of the people who were banned were angels, I take it. I just want the good ones to be able to be heard rather than the ones who will see this as an opportunity to advance a POV to drown out the whole discussion. Keeping good editors on the talk page primarily will keep the signal:noise ratio high. Obviously, anyone can do anything they think is within policy, and I'm not an admin anyway, so I won't be banning. I just meant that the attention this page is receiving now means that people who move contentiously will be seen and likely not in a good light. FWIW I don't see any difference with putting reliable sources in a draft on the talk page before adding them. I also have no problem with constructive, sourced edits from anyone. But be careful, since others may interpret things through the lens of past actions. That's what I meant. Ocaasi^c 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the idea of a "general amnesty". There's no obvious reason why this article is different from any other. If editors were improperly banned - for example, as "sock puppets" or "meat puppets" for no other reason than that they agreed with an existing group of editors - then this needs to be confronted directly. The problems in policy, or with administrators violating policy, need to be identified and fixed. If there are wronged editors here, let's see a list of their names and grievances before we start cheering on an amnesty that may or may not be deserved. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If you got an indefinite that you think was unwarranted, go through the normal process. If you did something that bad, why should you get amnesty?LedRush (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was one. My INDEF block, added by user: Black Kite, is noted as being for "sockpuppetry". I have one account. One user name, tjholme. No one else logs in from my IP. I threatened no one. Vandalized nothing. Used no vulgar language. I was called an SPA and unceremoniously banned after arguing against user:PhanuelB's INDEF. No evidence of sockpuppetry was presented. This same basic scenario was played out again and again last Fall on virtually anyone that strayed from the approved narrative implying Knox's guilt. I suggest we remove all of the blocks and start fresh with the aim of actually creating something really fair and balanced. tjholme 67.168.126.17 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't you just appeal the block and ask to come back? I don't see why this can't be done on a case-by-case basis.LedRush (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So was Black Kite the only admin doing these contested blocks? If it's determined that he was acting improperly, it could be appropriate to undo all of his blocks, regardless of the article involved. Wnt (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite was the primary and most aggressive 'enforcer' (to borrow a hockey term) but he acted with the full knowledge and support of a number of senior admins. One only need review the block logs to see the same handful of names coming up over and over to sustain Black Kite's actions. tjholme 67.168.126.17 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than blame specific administrators, I think the problem is the standard don't bite the newcomers policy Wikipedia:BITE gets reversed on controversial articles. Instead of getting a welcome to Wikipedia message or gentle warnings, new editors to this article that believed that Knox was innocent were treated as conspiracy theorists and confronted harshly. For example, the first message on user:PhanuelB's talk page was that he was suspected of being a sockpuppet. Users were sometimes goaded into making statements about administrators being unfair that were then used as an excuse for banning. Even as an experienced editor, I felt uncomfortable in many of the discussions about this article. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Events surrounding the murder

I corrected a minor error in this section. Meredith spent the evening with three friends not two. But it still needs a rewrite to make sense to any reader not already familiar with the case.

On the evening of the murder, the flat where Meredith was murdered was empty. The two Italian flatmates were out of town and Amanda was at her boyfriends. The four men that lived in the downstairs flat were also out of town. Meredith had dinner and watched a DVD movie with three other English women. Meredith left for home around 8:45 PM, walking with one of her English friends, then parting company to walk the remaining distance on her own. She would have arrived at the flat shortly after 9 PM. Some time later that evening she was murdered.

The statements about the "chilling scream" and estimated time of death belong in the trial section, not here.--Footwarrior (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but also, I really wanted to say all those events were pieced together from interviewing 200? witnesses (including the 3 at the dinner) about the events that night, and then forming a timeline chronology of events. Doesn't that seem a fair approach? I think some people had used that section to state "God-given" facts about the murder to suit a POV slant. Whereas the suspects could only claim something happened, that section was considered written in stone. -Wikid77 07:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This section should be for events that are not disputed. Both sides of this case agree that Meredith spent the early evening with her English friends and that none of the residents were at her flat at the time she started walking home. The phone calls the next day are from phone company records, not witness testimony. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the following sentence is not supported by its citation and is also false: “At 12:08 pm the following day, Knox called a flatmate,[24]:346 telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, a broken window, some blood, and that Meredith was missing.[24]:16-7” The citation (in English translation of the Massei report found here: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=259) actually says: “she [Filomena Romanelli] was in the car with her friend Paola Grande, she received a phone call: it was Amanda letting her know that there was something strange. She [Amanda Knox] had arrived and had found the door open: she had had a shower and it had seemed to her that there was some blood; moreover she said that she was going [17] to Raffaele's place (declarations of Romanelli page 31, hearing of February 7, 2009). To her (Filomena's) question about where Meredith was, she had answered that she did not know.” p29-30.

No mention is made of the discovery of a broken window ( which Knox says she discovered later), and it is quite a twist to get ‘said Meredith was missing’ out of ‘To her (Filomena's) question about where Meredith was, she had answered that she did not know.’ For Knox to have reported Meredith as 'missing' in the context of Knox coming to her cottage in mid day makes no sense anyway. In addition to being simply wrong, I believe the sentence intends to give the impression that Knox actively wants to set the stage for the coming discovery of the crime, a conclusion not based on the citation. It is hard to believe that this was unintended. Moodstream (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, the broken window was mentioned in a later phone conversation with Filomena. If I recall correctly, I was the editor who put these words in the article and certainly didn't intend to imply that Amanda was setting up some clever scheme. Perhaps we should mention that Amanda called one of Meredith's phones first, then called Filomena, then tried both of Meredith's phones again. When Filomena called back, she was told about the broken window. Do you have any suggestions on wording? --Footwarrior (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Expanding this part of the article is probably appropriate, but we don't want to bog the reader down in trivial details about phone calls. The important facts are that Amanda returns to the cottage, tries phoning Meredith, calls Filomena and discusses her concerns and eventually has Raffaele call the police. The Postal Police show up unexpectedly just before Filomena returns with her friends. Then the door to Meredith's room is forced and her body discovered. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that every line in this section is burdened, and the sum is negative towards Knox. This case is very controversial. In the end, any rewrite that wants to claim neutrality must develop and explain the legitimacy of the controversy. Just these lines for example, ‘At 12:08 pm the following day, Knox called a flatmate,[24]:346 telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, a broken window, some blood, and that Meredith was missing.[24]:16-7 She also called Kercher's two mobile phones.[24]:346 At 12:51 pm and 12:54 pm, Sollecito made calls to 112, the Italian emergency number.[24]:342' skew the reader towards guilt by overlooking Knox's explanation - she spent the night at her boyfriends, walked home to shower and change and then to return to her boyfriend for a day trip. Only when she stepped out of the shower did she notice blood stains on the shower pad. She returned to her boyfriend to discuss the condition of the cottage. From there she called Filomena. Together they returned to the cottage. After inspecting the property, they decided to call the Carabinieri.

Of course that story does not have to be the truth. But ignoring it creates an impression that Knox hung around her flat from 12:08 to 12:51 idly, not reporting the crime, which is unsupported. Moreover, I understand that it has been a tremendous effort to have this page reflect the fact that Knox and Sollecito without inducement called the police to report the status of the cottage. While this is reflected in the line ‘Sollecito made calls to 112, the Italian emergency number.’ , I find this rather weak language for what has explosive implications for the trial – that is, if guilty, Knox/Sollecito have decided call the Carabinieri knowing there is a house full of evidence for the Carabinieri to find. --Moodstream (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The trick is coming up with the right words to explain this and backing it up with reliable sources. There is some agreement about the times and general content of the phone calls, but not on where the two suspects were at the time the calls were made. The current article is an improvement over some earlier versions that stated the Postal Police showed up at 12:35, long before the Carabinieri were called. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate how difficult these issues must be to resolve. My personal concern may be that I am a little over my head. Please feel free to correct me anytime. Thanks for the intro info also btw.

Taking a look at this paragraph: ‘At 12:08 pm the following day, Knox called a flatmate,[24]:346 telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, a broken window, some blood, and that Meredith was missing.[24]:16-7 She also called Kercher's two mobile phones.[24]:346 At 12:51 pm and 12:54 pm, Sollecito made calls to 112, the Italian emergency number.[24]:342 Before the Carabinieri arrived in response to these calls, two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police came to investigate the discovery of the mobile phones carried by Kercher in a nearby garden.[28] Knox and Sollecito were standing outside and told the police that the premises had been burgled, that a window had been broken and that there were bloodstains in the bathroom.[24]:86

Perhaps it could say instead something along the lines of – On Nov 2 at 12:08 Knox called Filomena Romanelli, the flatmate responsible for the lease, to tell her that upon her return to the flat in the morning, Knox found the front door open and some blood in the bathroom. Also, she was unable to reach Meredith. At 12:51 pm and 12:54 pm, Sollecito called the Carabinieri, Italy’s national police to report that the cottage seemed to have been burgled. By coincidence, within minutes two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police arrive to investigate the discovery of the mobile phones carried by Kercher in a nearby garden. – Also, IIRC, K/S are found sitting, not standing. However, I wonder if this entire section does not yearn to be a timeline. I have not perused the archives, but this section has the feel of a stunted, overly pruned timeline that wanted to be so much more. Which appeals to me. Don’t you think the article could use a detailed timeline of all events from start to finish, with every item likely to be debated plugged in. I think it would make a dandy reference for the text, which I loudly argue should clearly evince and explain the controversies regarding the evidence against Knox and Sollecito.Moodstream (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another topic within this section that denies legitimate controversy: “According to investigators, Kercher died in the flat at around 11 pm.[27]" The citation reads: “Starting with the investigations, the Public Prosecutor and the Judicial Police proceeded to reconstruct the movements of the girl in the last hours of life, also moving from the assumptions made by CT in medical-legal point of time of death, to be placed at a distance of no more than 2 or 3 hours after the last meal,” It does continue with “and likely to be understood that occurred around 23:00”. It is not immediately clear why that is likely though, because the source later reads: “On 17 November, P. made a new statement to the magistrate proceeding, confirming earlier statements but not able to clarify the time at which the four friends had begun to eat in the house of A. and R. (18:00, probably, or possibly earlier)" If this source should be used to report the time of death, accuracy requires the time of death to be reported as 2 or 3 hours after the last meal. Yes?Moodstream (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is some lack of clarity, the 11pm number should be removed entirely, as it is sourced only to a primary source. This is why using primary sources is a problem. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. I am very new to this business, so I hope you will forgive me for not understanding what a good secondary source would be. Anyone slightly familiar with this case understands the controversy over the time of death. There is a lot of biased media reporting on this case. Finding an old newspaper article that says the prosecutor says the time of death is 11pm, or 11:30 or later, won’t be hard, but is still inaccurate. I would hate to see this controversy buried under a pile of old newspapers. Moodstream (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources are sources that are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. In this case, the various books and newspaper articles are secondary sources. If information about time of death was reported in a newspaper, we should include that information. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I question that. Qualified secondary sources can support the veracity of a claim that may otherwise be seen as OR. However, the secondary sources considered here are too likely to be mere wrappers for the original source. Any source that reports the TOD at 11pm or later simply parrots the findings of the court as reported in Massei or Micheli. Why not attribute right to them? Moodstream (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

An earlier version of the article

For those who are new to this article, this old version was pointed out to me as significantly more detailed in some respects than what we have now. I have found it useful, and suspect that others will as well. Of course it is old, and out of date in some important respects. But at 155,000 bytes, compared with today's 70,000 bytes... it has a lot more information, some of which should likely be revived.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go back and look through the archives and see why specific sections were or were not included. And it would be very helpful if you stop talking in such vague ways. Raise specific issues - rather than talking about 70 odd kB of material as being "useful" perhaps you could say what you think we should concentrate more on. This talkpage has often suffered from being a general discussion on the topic rather than for specific issues focused on improving the article. Quantpole (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's vague to say that an old version may have material worth including. Not every comment will be extremely detailed and specific. I also think Jimbo is trying to point in the right direction but not take specific actions himself considering his position. When I have time I intend to look at the old version and see what might get moved. I suspect, though, that with the numerous new reliable sources out there currently which go into more depth than most of the early tabloid reports that it might be more beneficial overall to focus on newer material. But both should be considered and weighed. DreamGuy (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DreamGuy. Quantpole, if you don't feel like reviewing 70 odd kB of material, then please don't. There's no requirement to do so. However, it is really not helpful to attack people who are working to get up to speed in order to be able to help. I am going through the archives, but as I have said repeatedly, I choose not to make specific recommendations until I know what is going on. So, be patient, and please don't try to prevent me from working thoughtfully with others to review the entire situation.

The case is complicated. And by that I mean both the case of the murder and the case of how the article got to be how it is today. And some of what has happened is good, of course. And some of what has happened is quite clearly not Wikipedia at its best.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right that some of what has happened isn't Wikipedia at its best. It's a shame that you've chosen to exemplify that trait rather than deal with POV pushing and supporting those who have worked hard at maintaining a neutral article. As an example, please consider this version of an Amanda Knox article which was written by the same person encouraging you to look at the old revision. You've made your bed and now you're going to have to lie in it. I'm not going to stay around that's for sure. Quantpole (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Egads. What some may call "significantly more detailed" I would call "extremely verbose, bloated, and over-detailed", after slogging through that 150k. I do not believe an encyclopedia should be a painfully-detailed recounting over every step of the investigation. This is a broad overview of the "murder of Meredith Kercher"; what happened, who was involved, what the current status is, and what the public reactions are. Brevity is the soul of wit after all, and even at 70k this is still a fairly in-depth coverage of the affair. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In some cases, brevity is just not appropriate, as for example, a Wikipedia article about the Latin alphabet should not be kept brief by limiting the text to just the 6 letters: A, B, C, X, Y, Z. Also, consider the COBOL programming language which has hundreds of keywords (reserved words in the language lexicon), where a descriptive list, painfully-detailing the major use of 300 keywords would be insufficient. Why? ...because COBOL has over 400 keywords, and Wikipedia should not just list 300 of them, as an act of brevity, but also include the remaining 100+. In the case of the Kercher murder, there are some questions I think the article should address. Try to answer these questions from the current article:
• What criminal charge was made against Knox but not others, and why?
• What is the significance of the exact amount considered stolen?
• Who was convicted of that theft and why?
• What evidence indicated sexual activity?
• How many footprints of each suspect were found in the house?
• How much blood was found in Knox's room or her clothing?
• What evidence points to a potential 4th suspect?
• Why was Guede's sentence cut from 30 to 16 years, as conviction for murder/assault?
Providing answers to those questions is a reason to consider increasing the size of the article, rather than make it smaller. -Wikid77 01:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea someone had done such a great job with this article. I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't do as good a job as possible, if it's going to try at all. Aspects like the floor plan and the timeline are very detailed, and I say detail is not a dirty word. Do you think we have a moral obligation to ensure that Wikipedia can't compete with reviews of the topic sold under copyright? Then let's do it right.

Incidentally, on a quick reading of the 150k the thing that stuck out most to me was that it made it clear that the "low copy DNA" was a different test from what is used in the U.S. Extremely sensitive amplification of DNA tends to pick up mysterious contaminants, and when the technician isn't changing gloves as often as recommended? It is no longer such a sure thing. Wnt (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, that kinda response puts you squarely into the problematic WP:ADVOCACY realm. Are you here to write an article for an encyclopedia, or are you here to give excruciating detail after detail to cast doubt upon Ms. Knoxs' conviction? Tarc (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? How is it "advocacy" to support having a detailed article with a timeline and a floor plan? Unless you're admitting that the deletions skewed the article against Knox? Besides, I haven't even decided whether I think she did it. Wnt (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Anybody primed for compiling a catalog of case controversies? Moodstream (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and goodbye

I have devoted time to trying to improve this article and, in particular, trying to avoid its becoming a platform for any of the many and varied bloggers who have an opinion about the subject matter. Now, we are going round this same argument again but, this time with Jimbo Wales himself promoting the views of the bloggers. I don't have a strong view on the guilt or innocence of any of the accused, but I do have strong views on what makes a great encyclopedia. Finding that these views differ so sharply from Jimbo's (as exemplified by the version of the article that he has recently posted), it is clear that I am in the wrong place. So, thanks to all the great people I have worked with here at Wikipedia; good luck to all who are working on this article in the future; and goodbye. Bluewave (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will endeavor always not to personalize things, but I cannot let this editor's comment to pass unchallenged. The older version of the article that Jimbo posted is obviously more neutral than the current version, but I can understand why this editor is upset. His activities are one of the principal reasons the article reached such a sorry state. He was endlessly creative in his invention of pretexts to keep solid information out. The very first edit I made on the article--a small thing, of no real consequence--this editor reverted within minutes. Not only this, but he then followed me to an ancillary article and reverted that too. The falsely polite note he sent did not mask the hostility of the intent. I too have strong views on what makes a good encyclopedia and it more closely aligns with Jimbo Wales' vision. The idea is to get it right and that means seeking good information wherever we can find it. PietroLegno (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If he's really retired then it's a moot point and not worth rehashing. Let's always move forward. And if he decides to stay, that's great too. It sounds like he chooses to believe Jimbo is taking a side when all he is doing is focusing on the policies this project was built upon. When he sees how the article progresses maybe he'll be pleasantly surprised and continue on editing. DreamGuy (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll leave behind old grievances as we move forward. PietroLegno (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Crikey Peter–as endeavours go that one just renders one speechless. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Coverage in Wikipedia reflects coverage in sources

Many who have tried to steer the contents of the article seemed to forget that Wikipedia's coverage of a subject is expected to reflect the coverage in the WP:RS reliable sources, not provide a balance of "all 17 viewpoints" which does not exist in the world at large. If many sources had stated Meredith Kercher's music video was destined for major awards, and her British friends were all hatefully jealous of her success and plotted to attack her (not actually stated in sources), then the article would have contained similar text, to reflect the preponderance of the sources. However, instead, we find headlines in a Swedish report, as follows:

Donald Trump: "Frige Amanda Knox" - Nyhetspressen.se ("Free Amanda Knox")

When something is reported, all over the world, including as headlines in Swedish, it is common practice in Wikipedia to consider that as part of the preponderance of views about the subject. Wikipedia is not an advocacy site to ensure judicial fairness, and cannot force Swedish headlines to state "Frige John Doe" just because Amanda Knox received more publicity than a "John Doe". That is why the article should have focused on the coverage as seen in the numerous sources, rather than an each-person-gets-5000-words balance being imposed on the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting each person gets 5000 words. On the other hand, what gets coverage in Sweden may be (and from your example appears to be) unrepresentative of coverage of the world as a whole. We also have to look at how notable something is. Talking about Donald Trump's little bit of rather shallow news coverage for expressing an opinion while ignoring the considerable amount of more in depth coverage Steve Moore and Douglas Preston have received that tackles details of the case is very odd. And, overall, the thing most lacking in this article is the views of Knox and Sollecito's lawyers, which is extremely unbalancing. I think the opinions of Donald Trump could be included in a short section on celebrity reactions (which might include Fox News pundits and the actress in the Knox telefilm saying she supports Knox now), but mentioning him while ignoring more detailed and expert sources with more coverage is not acceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an active discussion on this above. The issue is that this case has seen an extraordinary amount of coverage, and that coverage (the amount and substance) is itself notable. When reflecting the coverage in this article, we should try to remain proportional to the type of coverage, not give equal time to each side. Of course, this is extremely hard to quantify and define, but that should be the goal. The current problem is that there is little in the article about the coverage generally, and the article implies that any pro-Knox coverage is primarily due to her PR campaign. That is, of course, unprovable and ridiculous. We should just stick to the facts and report on the actual coverage. If there is extremely different coverage in certain counties, we could even break the section out that way.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that "the article implies that any pro-Knox coverage is primarily due to her PR campaign". I would say though that at the moment there is relatively little information about the support of Knox given how much coverage it has received. This is a major part of the article and so should receive better coverage. Ideally sources would be ones that summarise the situation. An example would be (from a quick look - I am sure there may be more or better) this. Quantpole (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the header "The Knox PR Campaign" has been deleted, thus deleting the implication to which I referred.LedRush (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good riddance to that header. The idea that a tiny Seattle based public relations firm could hoodwink the entire U.S. media was always absurd. PietroLegno (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Case of Charlie Wilkes

I have recommended a blanket amnesty for editors who were banned on the flimsiest of pretexts. Nothing illustrates the need for this step more clearly than the treatment of Charlie Wilkes. He recently applied for reinstatement and was reflexively turned down by someone who calls himself “Sandstein.”

I am concerned that if banned editors are forced to jump through all the ordinary hoops they will all get the sort of vague, reflexive, not-very-thoughtful response that Sandstein provided. Charlie Wilkes unquestionably believes that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, and has maintained as much on his website and in numerous online discussions. He is also one of the most knowledge people on the planet about the details of the crime scene, trial, and press coverage in this case. I mean this literally.

In his work on Wikipedia Charlie has always been honorable and forthright. He could, of course, have chosen to sign up for Wikipedia using a completely fictitious name. Instead he chose to use a name that would be familiar to those who follow the case so that his beliefs would be transparent. As far as I can tell, Charlie’s main contribution to the article involved edits made on a single issue: whether Raffaele called before or after the police arrived. At trial it was conclusively established that the call was made before the police arrived just as Raffaele maintained all along. The trial judge accepted the defense claim. Charlie demonstrated this with great clarity and Wikipedia was improved as a result.

Is Charlie part of a “coordinated campaign”? I imagine he was one of the signatories of the online petition that drew Jimbo Wale’s interest. Would that mean that all 60 signatories to the petition should be banned? I sincerely hope not. If a group of James Joyce scholars got together and decided that the content of the article on the great Irish novelist could be improved would they be subject to banishment?

Surely, the real issue of concern is not a person’s known beliefs but how they behave as editors. There was nothing the slightest bit objectionable about Charlie’s informed commentary on the Knox-Sollecito trial. If we want to get it right—as opposed to playing silly games—we need people like him. PietroLegno (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Charlie Wilkes unquestionably believes that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, and has maintained as much on his website and in numerous online discussions ... Is Charlie part of a 'coordinated campaign'?" Well, there is your statement that Mr Wilkes contributes to other websites. How do you know this much about him, may I ask? I've long had a suspicion about off-site influence with regard to this topic... "Surely, the real issue of concern is not a person’s known beliefs but how they behave as editors." Precisely. And avoiding advocate- and activist-style conduct would appear to be a good path to follow to avoid being blocked, am I right? Super Mario Man 18:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Wilkes actually followed the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. He was open about having a potential COI and rather than edit the article directly, he made suggestions and helped others find sources on the talk page. It's also clear that he is knows this case inside and out. The COI guidelines explicitly state that such an editor should be assumed to be acting in good faith. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here we're starting to get close to the root of the problem. User_talk:Charlie_wilkes#Blocked says he was blocked, and his block appeal denied, "for off-wiki co-ordinated votestacking and meatpuppetry (see this link - section "Meatpuppetry and votestacking at MfD"). You may be unblocked if you convincingly account for your editing patterns - i.e. 3 months of inactivity after only editing one topic area, followed by a sudden return (along with multiple other editors) to attempt to stack consensus at a deletion discussion." Note that the above ANI thread concerns MfD for two items, in which Wilkes voted for only one of them. He voted in only one of these, not to delete a sandbox on someone's user page, User:PhanuelB/sandbox.^[4] But wait - it gets better. He voted on this right after Black Kite named him at that MfD! After voting to delete the item himself! And right afterward Black Kite puts an indefinite block on him for this one vote. This is what is done to someone editing under his own name, in a thoroughly reasonable way. This unholy triad of one administrator voting, calling out an editor to vote, and then blocking him indefinitely solely for casting his vote - it is an absolute disgrace. Wnt (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps the matter should be taken to ANI - this talk page wouldn't seem to be an appropriate venue for discussion of an individual user's conduct. Administrator Sandstein has pointed out that most of Mr Wilkes' contributions boil down to editorials that cross far into WP:FORUM territory - not really something that this quick-to-become-bloated talk page needs more of. Given his declarations from the outset that he is a firm supporter of innocence, it is somewhat difficult to assume good faith (i.e. that a user is here to help to produce a neutral encyclopaedia) - rather, it immediately raises suspicion that one is here to right a great wrong. Various calls on this talk page for a general amnesty of tendentious and blocked SPAs (none really more distinguishable from others) seem incredibly naive. Super Mario Man 01:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that in very general terms. From memory, though, Charlie Wilkes was a polite and unproblematic editor, even if he had a strong POV. That's not to say he may not have been blocked for legitimate reasons I'm unaware of. --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to discuss this here because people were talking about biased blocking and blanket amnesties here. I understand that Wikipedia isn't usually trying to "right great wrongs", but when the wrong is bias in one of our articles, you bet it is. I believe that we are all biased, all the time, and that good editing involves the productive contribution of information that a person is able to know due to his attachment, interest, and knowledge of the topic which his biases give him. Nonetheless I should point out that Charlie wilkes was blocked just once - a newbie-to-indefinite block - for the reason I give above, by the ANI discussion cited, and none other. Wnt (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit: Police Interviews Section

The article states: "She "stood by" her accusation of Lumumba, but said that she could not clearly remember whether she was at her flat or Sollecito's house at the time of the murder.[38]" I believe the "stood by" as presented in quotes is misleading. There is no such quote in the transcript that is linked to. In fact she states: "2. Why did I think of Patrik? 4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person? 3(her numbering). Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance." I don't believe even characterizing this as saying she "stood by her accusation" is entirely fair or accurate.RoseMontague (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair questions. But we know that she made the accusation. When did she retract it? Ian Spackman (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This section is also misleading by starting with Nov 5. It should be mentioned that Amanda and Raffaelle were questioned daily following the murder and maintained the same story until the all night interrogation on Nov 5--12.70.191.1 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)--Lilome (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If I were a cop reading this transcript the day after the 1:45 and 5:45AM statements, I would consider it a retraction of the false accusation.RoseMontague (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that her exact wording was "I stand by the statements I made last night that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." Then she went on to say the other things I quoted including asking who was the real killer. So in this case I don't think an edit is necessary but I do not feel that the level of her confirmation of those statements amounts to "standing by" them when she essentially goes on to contradict them. Perhaps a quote of her "who is the real murder(er)" might impart that level more accurately.

Why not put in her exact wording and let the reader decide its true meaning? --Footwarrior (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Something like "Knox wrote at the time "I stand by my statement" but that "these events seem more unreal to me". Further the statement asked "[w]ho is the REAL murder[er]" and stated "I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimon[y]"."LedRush (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe Miller65 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was canvassed via email to write this

I've quit Wikipedia - I think the project, as a whole, has been obviously compromised by individuals with interests divergent from creating a quality encyclopedia (namely, psuedoscientific cranks, and the profit-seeking shills that empower them). However, I attempted to mediate this dispute, and as such, I feel that the email I got asking me to write a brief summary of the problem would be helpful.

The underlying problem with this dispute is that Wikid77 is unable to restrain his exuberance to conduct original research about this generally non-noteworthy tabloid-fodder. It is readily apparent that he believes a close reading of some Very Important Facts by anyone as obviously good at Crime Scene Investigation from afar as he is would reveal the obvious fact that some other person killed Meredith Kercher. His unwillingness to act as an encyclopedic editor, focused on presenting reliable secondary sources led to a fully unproductive talk-page, consistent revert warring, and an uncooperative atmosphere, which persists to this very day.

I would ask that all participants review [5], and [6]. Those two sections deal with the removal of the still completely unintelligible list of facts that Wikid77 thinks are crucial to including in the article - those facts are the basis of Jimbo's suggestion that the "earlier version of the article" be reviewed. I'll repeat my question, yet again, about the inclusion of those sections, and yet again, beg for a quick response. Then, assuming that Jimbo is even remotely paying attention to who is building an encyclopedia and who is playing armchair detective, I would hope that this is put to bed.

So, with that "[In the "earlier version of the article" there was] a section in the article titled "Detailed forensics." It [had] been removed multiple times, as it appear[ed] to have very little to do with the article, and [was] not integrated at all with the text. Could someone explain what [was] relevent about this section so it can be incorporated into the text, as opposed to just tacked onto the end? Thanks."

Crossposted to Jimbotalk and the article talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikid77 here (late). I regret that User:Hipocrite has been canvassed to attack me again, and I recommend this: if anyone canvasses someone into more hopeless attacks against other editors on this article, just reply that the game is over. There are too many experienced editors returning to this article, and any attempts to goad them into commiting policy vios will likely fail. The admin User:Black_Kite resigned from WP on 25 January 2011, due to family illness, and other admins are so busy on thousands of important articles that they do not have time to hunt loopholes to block editors here. Plus, Jimbo's amazingly fast analysis of the article's problems has been publicized, with Google linking to those news stories, so expect many other editors to return here (and other people to join) with confidence that policies will be followed, in a WP:Assume-good-faith mode, no longer blocking users for a minor policy vio. -Wikid77 05:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about Wikid77's exuberance, other than an opinion that it's really a side issue to the issues we can and should be focused on.

There are several reasons to include detailed and well-sourced information about forensics and about the timeline on the night of the murder and of the days afterwards.

The public tends to find such information interesting and informative.
A presentation of the undisputed facts (and the disputed one, with neutral explanations of who disputes them) helps us to avoid silly POV-wars and "he said, she said" of simply reporting on what analysts have said about those facts
It is my view that the case appears to be genuinely controversial, even if we set aside press hype, anti-Americanism/anti-Italianism, etc. There are puzzling inconsistencies and much confused reporting. So focusing on the controversy alone risks leaving the reader puzzled as to why it is controversial

There are of course some reasons to be concerned about the overall length of the detailed factual material. It needs to be readable and not misleading. It needs to be careful to come from reliable sources only, and not from disputed sources.

Let me give just one tiny example to illustrate what I mean. Was Amanda Knox interrogated for hours without an attorney? Many sources say yes. FormerIP insisted no. That strikes me as a very easy thing to answer, and I think (but don't know yet and would happily be corrected) that the answer is that yes, she was interrogated for hours without an attorney, a process which produced a statement which she now says came under duress, but that technically she was interrogated "as a witness" rather than "as a suspect", leading to problems with the testimony being used in court. The testimony was in theory excluded from the murder trial, but since there was a civil action running concurrently, the court heard it anyway. Under US law, that wouldn't be appropriate, and is the sort of thing that gives rise to a feeling that the case was unfair. Under Italian law, I'm not sure.

The point I am making is key, so please don't respond to the previous paragraph except with this context in mind: the specific and uncontested details on issues like that matter, and simply reporting that "Knox and her lawyers say it was unfair, but the Prosecutor says it was fair" is just not useful to a reader. (We do say more than that, I am just making the broad case for inclusion of still more detail than we do now.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, Jimbo Wales, you had a hard time finding the section to which I refer. It is located at [7], and does not say a single word about the timeline of the interrogation. With that in mind, would you mind please responding to my question, which was "[In the "earlier version of the article" there was] a section in the article titled "Detailed forensics." It [had] been removed multiple times, as it appear[ed] to have very little to do with the article, and [was] not integrated at all with the text. Could someone explain what [was] relevant about this section so it can be incorporated into the text, as opposed to just tacked onto the end? Thanks." If you believe there is an actionable edit that needs to be made, please suggest it so we can discuss it, as opposed to merely grandstanding about problems. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems like forum posts and personal attacks. I think this section of the talk page should be deleted as such. If Hipocrite would like to make an edit request, he should do so without personal attacks. If he would like to argue against an edit request, he should also do so without personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that if you can't see the content question that I've now repeated twice, you are not really reading what I'm writing. I further suggest that accusing others of personal attacks is highly problematic - I contend that I have made no personal attacks, and finally suggest that you adress the question that I present multiple times - the questionable inclusion of the "Detailed forensics" section in the highly-touted "earlier version." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to be accused of personal attacks, you shouldn't make them. I see you arguing against an editor himself, not against content. I haven't seen a specific edit request to include or exclude any information...just some links to an old version of the article. If someone has formally asked that this info be included, perhaps the best place to discuss that is where they made that edit request. Also, when you do discuss it, we should endeavor to do so civilly.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, LedRush. Hipocrite, I do not have any specific edit suggestions for you at this time. I hardly think it is grandstanding to point people to an earlier version, nearly twice the size of the current version, with a view towards having multiple people review the information there. Why are you being so hostile?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been shockingly civil. The problem is that you have confused civility with passivity. The links to the old version of the article are links to the "earlier version," that it appears that Jimbo and others would like us to revert to. Thus, I am responding to the edit request to "revert to this old version." Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think it is "shockingly civil" to misrepresent me in this way? I did not argue for reverting to the earlier version. You have even gone so far as to blatantly manufacture a quote and say that you are 'responding to the edit request to "revert to this old version"'. I didn't say that, I don't believe it, I don't think we should. You might find it more pleasing to drop the hostility and actually listen to what I am saying.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So, in summary, you're merely saying that an old version, clogged with a mass amount of irrelevant, poorly structured, blatantly violating WP:SYN material exists, and we should all read that version because it is long? Got it. Hipocrite (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a general discussion in which Jimbo says that there is "some" information in an old version which may be revived, but I've missed the request for the mass revert. I'm also not sure why the attack on Wiki77 as part of the problem helps resolve this issue.LedRush (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, you are correct. I did not argue for a mass revert. He simply made that up.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo: You're correct in much of what you say, but wrong, I think, in your imputations. There's no good reason to adopt the slant that Knox was initially questioned technically "as a witness". She was questioned as a witness, plain and simple, no need for quotation marks. She turned up, of her own accord, at a police station and asked to be interviewed. During the course of the interview, she said that she had been at the scene of the crime and knew who the murderer was. The police then made a judgement that these revelation could have made her a suspect. They stopped the interview at this point because no lawyer was present and because, under Italian law, the police are not allowed to question people they have reason to suspect of a serious crime such as murder (this has to be done by a magistrate). There's no norm, AFAIK, by which any of that is at all questionable. In most democratic countries except Italy (again, AFIAK), there is also no way that the evidence from the interview would be inadmissible at trial. So your suggestion "under US law, that wouldn't be appropriate" is wrong-headed. In the US (correct me if I'm wrong, US criminal law is not an area of expertise for me) no issue of admissibility would have arisen in the first place. Not that US law should be considered as a relevant gold-standard in any case.--FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

She "asked to be interviewed." Never heard this one before, simply not true.Issymo (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll agree that I don't have a transcript of how the exact conversation went. Since she ended up being interviewed, presumably she either asked to be interviewed or someone said: "Since you've come all this way, I'm scratching my head trying to think of something useful you could do. I know it sounds crazy, but how about being interviewed?". She certainly did attend the police station voluntarily. That's widely reported (eg [8] [9] and doesn't even appear controversial (even this site says it on its front page: [10]. It would seem odd to suppose that she went voluntarily but did not anticipate asking to be questioned. --FormerIP (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, for what in particular? --FormerIP (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[EC]I seriously doubt FormerIP's account. To my understanding, she was asked to come to the police station to be questioned (she didn't just show up without being asked as FormerIP suggests). When there, she was interrogated extensively. If you believe what she's said about the questioning, there was mental and physical abuse as well. FormerIP's account seems unrealistic, and I repeat Jimbo's call for a source.69.86.53.252 (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether Amanda Knox was called into the police station or not is one of the many controversies in this case. Amanda was considered a witness up until the 1:45 a.m. statement that is true. There is a lot of reason to believe thought that the police used this status against her. A quote from Italian Blog Perugia Shock “Giobbi, chief of Direzione Centrale Anticrimine of Rome, said today in court that on the evening of the 5th he gave the order to bring Amanda and Raffaele together at the police station.” He was quoted saying "I'm mathematically sure that I gave that order, in that moment our attention was on Amanda and Raffaele, I decided that we needed to hear them together in order to study their reactions. We called them and they were eating in a pizzeria." In a news conference the next day the police chief also make a reference to breaking information out of Amanda that they already knew. Arturo de Felice, Perugia police chief -- "Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles." And then a few days later in court another judge says their arrest was purposeful. Judge Claudia Matteini -- "The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility." Adding to all of this FBI agent Steve Moore, who written about the case, has said this is a 3rd world tactic that he is aware of where they bring a witness in overnight and tag team them to break information out of them. They also continued to interrogate her after she was declared a suspect between 1:45 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. without a lawyer. As you can see, for this one small point that Amanda Knox was technically a witness, there is a lot of information to show that she should have been declared a suspect. I don’t know if it is better to just leave this detail of her officially being a suspect completely out of the article or to show all of the points against this one fact. It seems to me that including this much detail over one point would really drag down the article and I for one think it should perhaps be left out altogether.Issymo (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we ignore at our peril the police staffing issues Steve Moore raises. To summarize his point briefly, he argued that you do not have 12 detective grade officers, some of them brought up specially from Rome, just hanging around the police station in the middle of the night unless they have some specific purpose in mind. This takes planning and the permission of persons higher up in the organization. So, even if Amanda did happen to go there with Raffaele, all indications are that she would have been called in if she did not. The other piece of this is that the police were intercepting all of her calls. While they found nothing incriminating, they did realize that when her mother arrived in Perugia the next day, job number one was going to be to get her a lawyer. This would surely seem to suggest, as Moore in fact does, that the police realized time was running out and that they had to break Amanda that night. I strongly urge that Steve Moore's views be included in this discussion. His credentials are impeccable.PietroLegno (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And the above demonstrates the problem - no secondary sources discuss any of this. Jimbo, why aren't you telling these erstwhile people that they need sources, not just a lot of words on a page? Hipocrite (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, Hipocrite has added distortion of others' views to his personal attack arsenal. Please try and discuss the points, Hipocrite, not the editors.LedRush (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What discussion is there on the merits, right now? No comprehensible proposal has been offered. Further, physician, heal thyself. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you believe there is no proposal on the table, then you shouldn't have a need to respond to anything. And if you think there is a conversation worth reponding to, you should respond on the merits, not the editors.LedRush (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to summarize the state of the article and how it got there. I felt it was responsible for me to provide that background. Perhaps you should review the archived discussion pages? Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can discuss the state of the article without personal attacks. When people respond, you can discuss their responses based on the merits of their points, not by discussing the merits of the editor.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to stop responding to your accusitions that I am constantly making personal attacks. It appears not to be designed to move the discussion forward. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread is near pointless, since you're both in agreement that we should focus on content not editors. Since there's almost no content discussion in this section, let's close it. Ocaasi^c 14:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely, and suggested that this thread be closed almost as soon as it was opened.LedRush (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons a section as Detailed Forensics existed

25-March-2011: In mid-April 2010, the article had a bottom section of detailed forensic evidence to help sort the data related to each event, without cluttering the upper text of the article. The details included a list of blood-stained items in the room, to indicate how many items were affected, and which items contained a suspect's DNA, and what phone calls were logged, as an attempt to describe the details surrounding the murder. It must be understood that the discovery of the body was somewhat like the opening scene of a Shakespearean play: sources state there were 8 people (6 of whom arrived within 20 minutes), all present in the house together, when Kercher's door was forced open by Luca A. (boyfriend of Paola G. who was a friend of head housemate Filomena R.) while Knox was in the kitchen. People were returning to the cottage from the Festival of the Dead. Kercher's 2 mobile phones had been found separately, in separate gardens near the same lawn area about 1–2 kilometres (0.62–1.24 mi) away from the neighborhood(s) where the suspects lived. Evidence seems to show that Kercher's second phone (for UK calls) was found, ringing and ringing, when Amanda Knox called that phone at 12:07 pm (her first phone call on the day after the murder) and let it ring for 16 seconds. However, this level of detail was considered distracting in the upper text, so a bottom section was created.
That section was the result, of multiple discussions, about where to list the major blood-stained items in the article, in conjunction with DNA samples, fingerprint evidence, and luminol patterns. Because most of the blood-stain locations come from the Micheli Judgment summary (in Italian at Penale.it), the unusual Italian phrases had been included to verify against the source (which has none of the 106 page numbers, of the primary source document: the Micheli Judgment). Naturally, that level of detail, not just mentioning several items, but also several items as described in the local Italian dialect, was considered excessive in the upper text of the article, hence as a compromise, "Detailed forensics" was placed at the end of the page. There had been several attempts to wikilink down into that section for expanded details, but crosslinks had been removed several times (that's why it seemed "not integrated" into the upper text). There were 61 usuable fingerprints identified, in the upstairs flat, but only 1 for Guede (as the left palm-print under the single white bed pillow, matched at 16 points), leading some to claim he did a wipedown to remove all his other fingerprints from the apartment. Why is a list of items needed? ...to emphasize there was only 1 white bed pillow (not 2, not several, but 1 pillow with palm-print and shoe prints) in the room. Anyway, of those 61 prints, 2 of Sollecito were found outside Kercher's door, while Amanda's 1 print was found on a glass in the kitchen sink, and 13/14 fingerprints did not match anyone yet. Guede claims he also had a fruit drink that night, but none of his prints were found in the kitchen, and luminol reacts with fruit juice spills. With the ongoing appeal trial, as filed based on DNA issues (and a new witness), there is added emphasis on listing the major DNA samples (perhaps 15) and their RFU peak levels (such 131-687 RFU). Plus, we have 7 or more shoe-prints in the house, and perhaps 8 bare footprints or luminol splotches. Then there is the CCTV security camera video evidence, which had been claimed to catch Knox arriving, but witnesses said she answered the door at Sollecito's residence at that time (c.8:40 pm). That's why we compromised with a short end section for those details (at trial, there were 10,000 pages of evidence and witness summaries for 200? people). This situation is reminiscent of the phrase, "being so complicated, a score card was needed to follow the events" and hence, the Detailed Forensics section was like a score card to be re-read to cross-check the details. Also, tables and charts might be added to the article. The details are being discussed in the appellate re-trial so that is why they are noted, as items tied to further events.
Meanwhile, I had been warning folks to expect this article to reach 200kb, and even tried to split a subarticle as "Trial of Knox and Sollecito" (now, redirected) to reduce the text by 40%, but that split got AfD-merged back. Some people, insisting on a single article, said "articles can be 400kb" and I recommended not to burden readers with a single, huge article, but they insisted on no splits, yet. When the article exceeds 200kb, then we can consider a Wikibooks entry for expanding further. The basic concept is to keep growing the article with details from reliable sources, then split the large article into subarticles, and then split into a wikibook, which can then be referenced to provide coordinated details for the interested readers. This strategy involves no "prior restraint" against continually adding NPOV-neutral text to describe aspects of the murder; otherwise, people have claimed how the article is "still too small to split" as having a subarticle for more extensive coverage of the trial and re-trial events. Clearly, now, some people believe the whole murder case is "tabloid-fodder" to be systematically deleted by sections (despite 5 years in the New York Times), and they have actively sought ways to delete whole sections, while others were attempting to expand (and wikilink) those sections, with sourced details to reach a splitting point in the large article. The article has been analogous to explaining a game of poker, where people continually delete whole sections of rules, and argue where many of the 54 cards are original research in a tabloid-fodder subject, unworthy of an encyclopedia. This needs to be policy WP:54CARDS, to prohibit a subject to be pre-limited in coverage, as if unable to explain all 54 cards in a deck. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:47, revised 04:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Why aren't you able to explain why we need this section using a limited number of words that make even a little bit of sense? Hipocrite (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your repeated personal attacks. If a message is too long to read, don't read it. If you think the argument is bad, explain why.LedRush (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you read it? Can you explain it? That's what's wrong - it's a word salad, filibustering any progress. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Some subjects are extremely complex, so additional areas of complexity are added, in an effort to reduce the earlier complexity, for overall reduced complexity. This is a case of complexity begets complexity to gain simplicity. A prime example would be trying to simplify Einstein's derivation of the 1915 General Theory of Relativity, by the use of tensor calculus, to allow a much shorter formula for each situation, whereas the earlier 1905 Special Theory of Relativity could be derived using only algebra, as a combination of the 2 formerly separate laws: the Law of the conservation of energy (E), and the Law of the conservation of mass (m), where DE = 0, and Dm = 0. So, combining DE = Dm, and changing from a discrete to a continuous function, thus led to E₀ = mc², as the formula for velocity v=0. With the use of tensor calculus, the General Theory would have been more difficult to derive, so the added complexity, of using tensors, led to more simplicity in the final theory. However, some people have trouble learning new detailed procedures, so they dislike articles requiring knowlege of them, and perhaps this is one. The level of detail is intended to also answer questions of concern to criminologists, rather than have a POV-fork from the general public. -Wikid77 06:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not the CriminologistPedia though, it is a "general public" encyclopedia. Again, minutiae about pillows and 61 fingerprints and fruit drinks just seems like a ridiculous level of detail that people want to add to "prove" who is guilty or who may not be guilty. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to the need for a concise description, I think balance is needed. At least some of us who want more detail aren't interested in "proving" who did or didn't do it - but want to make sure that readers who come to this article do have an understanding of why there is a controversy. In my view, earlier versions of the article which omitted too much of the detail left the reader feeling that Wikipedia was pushing a particular view (namely, that objections to the conviction were generally or solely based on American nationalism or something like that). It is not up to Wikipedia to decide, but rather to give people enough neutral and factual information to satisfy their curiosity and equip them well to decide for themselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What information is currently missing? Please be specific. The general statements are unhelpful, at this point. What, specifically, needs to be added or removed, and why, and what secondary source says so? Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Two ideas

Busy talk page, so I wanted to pull out two good ideas:

Timeline section, could be WP:FORKed if it gets long. See Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution for an example.
List of case controversies. Those points that have received attention by RS and been described 'as controversies' should not just have their bare facts included; their status as controversial should be noted. A separate section could very much help readers with recognizing the agreed-upon details from the disputed details, especially the disputes that have mattered in court or public opinion. Ocaasi^c 13:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, I suggest we remove the majority of the timeline section, which is under the header "Events surrounding the murder." In the current version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&oldid=420503306), it is almost entirely based off of primary sources - and those primary sources are not disinterested, rather they are the statements of the prosecutor/investigators or those of the defence attorney. Starting at "At 12:08 pm the following day..." and ending at "The area was secured for investigation." we source the article only to argumentative primary sources. If those trivial details did not merit mention in secondary sources, why do they merit mention in our article. I have made this change, and would hope that when/if it is reverted, the reverter will discuss here. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it broke some references leading to error messages at the end of the article. These events are also needed to understand the case and are mentioned in secondary sources. While I do agree that the Massei report is argumentative, the references were simply to times of phone calls and statements by witnesses. The references to the "GTrial" references should certainly be replaced. It's one long document in Italian without page numbers. As such, it's almost impossible to verify claims that use this document as a reference. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dempsey's book "Murder in Italy" appears to be a good secondary reference for this information. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What information that I removed do you believe should be returned? Why? I assumed your revert was only due to the reference breaks, so I reverted it and fixed the references. If it was not, please re-revert with my blessing. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The way it reads right now, one would assume the police responded to the report of "a chilling scream". That is certainly incorrect. The discovery of the murder happened the next day. After Raffaele called the police, and after Filomena and her friends had returned to the cottage. Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage when the police arrived, perhaps explaining why the police focused on them as suspects. Give me a chance to change the references and reword this section a bit. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Some "who cares" comments - "Knox called a flatmate" - who cares? "She also called Kercher's two mobile phones" - who cares? "two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police came to investigate the discovery of the mobile phones carried by Kercher in a nearby garden" Who cares? Why are we including these random factoids source only to primary sources? Further - "first by the police alone and, later that night, in the presence of a prosecutor" - who cares? Why are these all included? Justify each and every one, please. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is relevant, neutral, encyclopedic information. It is not necessary to justify each and every one of them with a separate argument. This is an article about a crime. A big part of what makes the case interesting is the precise timeline of what happened. The default assumption, therefore, is that the reader should be told about it. All of the details you cite are perfectly justifiable and relevant information.

The last one, in particular, goes directly to the heart of an important point: when was she given the services of an attorney and to what extent were her prior statements coerced? If you don't know that she was questioned "first by the police alone and, later that night, in the presence of a prosecutor" you can't really understand what happened. Censoring such information is wildly inappropriate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to update this section and ran into a massive edit conflict due to all the tagging by Hipocrite. I will get back to it later today. The timeline of discovery is important to this case, in part because a lot of early reports got it wrong. My goal is to keep this section neutral. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Jimbo, it's not. You allege that the fact that she called a friend relevant - let's just focus on that. Why is it relevant? Given that I'm questioning their inclusion in the article, I think it is imperative that someone justify it, with more than hand waiving about how they are relevant. Why is that call relevant, and more relevant than all the other random details about the night that we editorially chose not to include? Further, you allege that the last point goes to your personal concern regarding her representation. Being questioned first by the police and later by a prosecutor makes no statement about when she was granted legal representation. How is who did the questioning relevant to the fact she was questioned with or without an attorney present? Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, pretty please can you take care about accusing editors of censorship. Hipocrite's edit may be right, wrong, helpful or unhelpful, but he does have a rationale for it in WP:PRIMARY. We do need to be at least judicious about including information in the article which can't be found in secondary sources. It isn't clear why all of these details should be included. Even with the issue of police and prosecutor interviews. I agree this may be important, but it is not actually useful information unless our article allows the reader to understand why it is important (our info on this seems incorrect in terms of timings, though). --FormerIP (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo has now reverted my tags. Apparently I'm not even allowed to question the relevance of specific statements. I'll just put a dispute tag on the section. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess we're now in a special zone within Wikipedia where normal rules don't apply and instead of relying on what secondary sources report you create a little story in your head about what happened in order to determine what facts should and shouldn't be in the article. The article can only get so much worse before it starts to get better again, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that you could be more constructive in your comments. Of course you know that many people feel that the rules of WP have been subverted on this article for a long time by a cabal of like-minded editors with a specific POV. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere between these two views.LedRush (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Request by author to revise current book list

Two books are currently missing from the books listed in the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article. These books rank 2 and 3 respectively on Amazon.com when searching for Amanda Knox. Both books are currently available in print. I am the author of one of these books so I am only here to make the suggestion. I am hopeful others will agree that these 2 books should be added. John Follian's book has already made the list and it isn't even available for sale yet.

1. The Monster of Perugia: The Framing of Amanda Knox Author: Mark C. Waterbury Ph.D. Book details: Paperback: 262 pages, Publisher: Perception Development, Language: English, ISBN-10: 0983277419, ISBN-13: 978-0983277415

2. Injustice in Perugia: a book detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Author: Bruce Fisher Book details: Paperback: 344 pages, Publisher: CreateSpace, Language: English, ISBN-10: 1453736697, ISBN-13: 978-1453736692

These appear to be self-published books, so it wouldn't be usual to list them or use them in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking for them to be used in the article. I am asking that they be listed in the book section as books that detail the case. BruceFisher (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-published books don't reach the level of notability to include in that section. Did you write and publish one of the books? Please review WP:COI. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no plans to edit the article so there is no need to ask me to review WP:COI. I am only making a friendly request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceFisher (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant policies: WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:BLPSPS. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The author of the first book, Mark Waterbury, has his biography here. While he sounds like an awesome guy, he doesn't seem to meet that standard. I could personally be persuaded if the book has received extensive reviews from reliable reviewers in reputable publications.

For the second book, I am unable to find a proper biography of Bruce Fisher at all, but that may be my own failing. Perhaps he is an established expert whose work is relevant, but I see no evidence of it yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The book section of the article lists the books that detail the case. It does not suggest that these books are reliable sources for the Wikipedia article. Barbie Latza Nadeau is certainly not a credible source. She is also not an expert. I am not asking to be listed as a credible source. I am simply asking for the book list to reflect the actual books that are currently in print. Barbie Latza Nadeau is a tabloid journalist published by the a tabloid publisher. So from what I can tell, the current standard set has little to do with actual content. Wikipedia only looks to see if the book secured a publisher. Do I understand that correctly?

Can I ask what standards were met to add this book to the list? Jacopo Pezzan, Giacomo Brunoro, Amanda Knox And The Perugia Murder: Italian Crimes (also known as Amanda Knox And The Perugia Murder), LA CASE, March 2011, ASIN B004QXYED6. Italian version: Amanda Knox e il delitto di Perugia [Amanda Knox and the Crime of Perugia]: Misteri Italiani, LA CASE, March 2011, ASIN B004QXZYYE. Audiobooks.

Mr. Wales, I want to personally thank you for taking time to address the issues with this page. I respect Wikipedia's guidelines completely. My questions regarding the book section are far less important than the content of the article. I also understand if you are unable to accept my book for the list based on the current guidelines. I am not an expert. Like many authors who write books on topics such as this one, I base my work on extensive research. My book is based on documented expert opinion. I am not sure how Dr. Waterbury's credentials don't stand up to Wikipedia's standards. I would ask that you give Dr. Waterbury another look. BruceFisher (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Newsweek is not a tabloid. She has dozens of articles published in Newswee, including 6 covers. Professional journalists like Barbie Latza Nadeau are reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This conversation deals with the book section of the article. I am referring to Barbie Latza Nadeau's book "Angel Face" published by Beast Books. Are you suggesting that "Angel Face" is a credible source for the Wikipedia article? BruceFisher (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Unquestionably. Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you also consider "The Daily Mail" as a credible source? BruceFisher (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of it, yes. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that sums up your position Hipocrite. I don't see how you can possibly contribute to a neutral article on this case with the sources you have chosen as credible. I am obviously an advocate for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. For this reason, I have no intention of attempting to edit the Wikipedia article. With your current take on things, I would hope that you would limit yourself to the discussion as well. BruceFisher (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No. I have no position on the case. I don't know why you are asking me about random British newspapers. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this is not the place for this conversation but "The Daily Mail" has misrepresented the facts about this case for 3 years. It is disturbing to me that you consider "The Daily Mail" as a credible source, and at the same time, you are actively editing the Wikipedia article. BruceFisher (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The question of the Daily Mail being a reliable source is a perennial topic at the reliable sources noticeboard, where the generally consensus is that it is at times so-so. So while it is a tabloid and some of its sensationalist reporting has been questioned, particularly in scientific news and reporting, I would (no offense) rate it above a single purpose editor with an admitted conflict-of-interest and clear advocacy issues regarding the Kercher case. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparing "The Daily Mail" to Bruce Fisher is silly (no offense). I am not asking to be used as a source. You endorse "The Daily Mail" as a credible source. I think Wiki articles should require sources to be better than "so-so." Just my opinion. BruceFisher (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But the issue here isn't whether the books are RSs, but whether they can be included in the "books about" section, right?LedRush (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That was my request. I requested that the "books about" section be updated to show books currently in print detailing the case. The list already contains books that cannot be looked at as credible sources for the Wikipedia article. BruceFisher (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Then WP:ELNO #2 and #11 will suffice. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I fail to see how the rules you posted have any relevance. Here they are:

2. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) 11. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

Who is asking to add a link to a blog, web page or fansite? Who is asking to add a link to a website that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research?

I requested that two books that are currently in print be added to the "books about" section. Even though both books have accurate information verified by credible sources, that is not the question here. I asked for nothing that you are implying. I asked for the "books about" section to be updated. That's all. BruceFisher (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your book is not a credible source for much of anything, it is simply reflective of your own digging and specualtino into the subject area, and not worthy to be linked to by any article. It is self-published and not recognized or reviewed by any reliable, independent body. Is that clear enough for you? I have no conclusion to make regarding the other book at the moment, but nothing in that person bio really says much about why he should be considered an authoritative source on crime and forensic investigation. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc. your opinion of my book is noted but completely irrelevant to the discussion. If you actually read the book you would see that I document credible expert opinion. Once again, not relevant here. You listed 2 rules that have nothing to do with the conversation. When I called you on it, your true feelings came out. Please take the time to apply the same standards to all of the books that are currently listed. Try your best to keep your own personal bias out of your analysis when you do so. BruceFisher (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe if you are using the Daily Mail and "Angel Face" as credible sources that you should allow for all the other books to be used as credible sources. Barbie Nadeau is no more credible than Candace Dempsey based on the logic used here. Also, The Daily Mail is tabloid based as well as Barbie Nadeau's Daily Beast articles. Most of the work done by reports for both were in tabloid form and inacurate. I believe if the other sources are allowed to be used, people can make their own judgement based on each independent source. Also, to acuse these other writes are being part of Team Knox is ridiculous! That is like saying Barbie Nadeau is Team Mignini or Team Prosecution. Joe Miller65 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Murder in Italy by Candace Dempsey appears to be a reliable source. It is published by Penguin/Berkley Books, and Dempsey is a reporter for Seattlepi, and has articles appear in the Chicago Tribune, and other major dailies. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That does look like some sort of reliable source. I note with amusement, though, that the cover makes it seem like the full title is Murder In Italy: Includes Photos. Doesn't make it seem too high-brow. --FormerIP (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like we all agree that the books aren't reliable resources. Can someone point to any WP policy at all regarding why they couldn't be included in the "books about the murder" section? I think the only guideline would be that they aren't notable. Have any secondary sources referenced the books?LedRush (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first book has gotten at least some secondary coverage. [11]LedRush (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Events surrounding the murder - relevence

The following is the Events surrounding the murder section. I believe most of it is irrelevant, and would appreciate a point-by-point explanation as to why a reader would care about this information. Please be certain not to engage in armchair detectiving - rather, using sources, explain why this is important information - don't explain how it proves someone is innocent or guilty, or whatever, but rather, what reliable sources have commented on it:

At 12:07 pm the following day, Knox called one of Kercher's mobile phones.

A minute later, she called a flatmate, telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, and blood in her bathroom.

Knox called Kercher's second mobile phone and tried the first phone again.

The flatmate called Knox back three times. During the last call that started at 12:34 pm, Knox said that the window in the flatmate's room was broken and the room was a mess.

At 12:47 pm, Knox called her mother in Seattle who told her to call the police.

Before the Carabinieri arrived in response to these calls, two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police came to investigate the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones in a nearby garden.[28] Knox and Sollecito were standing outside and told the police they were waiting for the Carabinieri, a window had been broken and there were bloodstains in the bathroom.[22]:61-62

During this call, Knox can be heard giving the address for the flat.

My proposed section:

At 8:40 pm on the night of the murder, witness testimony placed Knox at Sollecito's flat.[21] Kercher spent the early evening with three friends[22]:48 and set off for home at about 8:45 pm, accompanied by a friend. They parted company near the friend's flat shortly before 9 pm.[23][24]: 24 At some point during the evening, a neighbour reported hearing a "chilling scream" and, soon after, the footsteps of "at least two people" running from the flat. At 12:51 pm and 12:54 pm the next afternoon Sollecito made two calls to the Italian emergency number 112 reporting a break in, blood, a locked door and a missing roommate."

The police found blood in several rooms of the flat and near Kercher's locked bedroom.[27] The window in one of the bedrooms had been smashed and there was broken glass and a large stone in a bag on the floor.[27] The door to Kercher's room was forced open and the police found Kercher lying beneath a duvet, soaked in blood, with pools and smears of blood around the room.

Thank you for your consideration. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to give sources about why we think something is relevant, we just need to make sure the statement have sources. I believe the information is relevant in allowing a reader to decide for himself whether the actions are consistent with someone who committed murder. It also firmly established a timeline for what happened regarding the defendant immediately prior to the arrival of police.LedRush (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying - you believe we need to include this information because you believe that it make someone look more innocent/guilty, not because the information is notable - IE, it's your personal research that this information is important, because when you see it you go "Oh, because she made that phone call, she's obviously innocent/guilty?" Is that correct? Hipocrite (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. I said nothing of the sort and do not agree with it at all. I said and meant the precise opposite. What I said is that your version censors relevant facts that the reader needs in order to understand the events on that day, and that your selection of facts to omit appears to me to be particularly one-sided. I think that Wikipedia should contain all relevant and useful information which is well-sourced, subject to editorial judgment about conciseness and readability, no matter whether the facts tend to implicate or exonerate anyone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, I know you've been here for a long time, but I was responding to LedRush. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I see the problem now - I cut off your paragraph. Apologies. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I was wondering why you responded in the middle of my statement. I think LedRush will say more or less what I did: he did not argue in favor of slanting Wikipedia, he argued against slanting Wikipedia and in favor of giving the reader all the facts that they need to make up their own mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And I argue against bloating Wikipedia and distorting the facts via selective presentation to prevent the reader from making up their own mind. Are you considering that presenting more than an encyclopedic article is against what we do here? It is possible to be far too detailed - missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Each and every one of these details is relevant to an understanding of the case, in a rather obvious way. The reader who wants to understand what happened will find it interesting to know what Knox's actions were on that day. Knowing that she made several different phone calls, and the time line of those calls, is important and interesting. If you have any reason to doubt the timeline (I don't gather that you do, though) then that would be worth a discussion here.

Your proposed version censors important details that the reader needs to know in order to understand the case. Your version seems very carefully designed to omit facts and thus tend to "convict" Knox. It isn't up to Wikipedia to omit well-referenced details in order to make a case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Which facts are missing from my version that tend to "convict" Knox that currently exist in the article? Be specific. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Compare the version you quoted (above) with the version you proposed (above). The parts that are missing? Those are the parts I'm talking about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are her cellphone calls relevant and her breakfast not? How is excluding the fact that she made a bunch of cellphone calls demonstrative of my subtle attempts to "convict" Knox (which I wasn't aware I was doing, but thanks for ABFing me)? Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo answered the above question just as I would have (or at least in a substantially similar manner). I think the information is notable in that it allows people to understand the day. Unless her stool was found somewhere, or the location of breakfast provides an alibi regarding the purhcase of cleaning supplies, what Knox ate for breakfast is not important.LedRush (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How do the phonecalls provide an alibi? How are the phonecalls MORE relevant than the breakfast? Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not knowing this, but are you using 'breakfast' as a rhetorical device, or do you have some reliable source about her breakfast that day? It is fairly obvious (see below for a detailed explanation) why her phonecalls are interesting and relevant to the reader, so maybe you are simply arguing in favor of some other information being included as well?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Breakfast is a rhetorical device for something that is uninteresting, like the series of phonecalls. I do not believe anything should be added to this bloatfest at this time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's a fair question. First, I don't see anything in our discussion here about her breakfast, and I don't know anything about her breakfast, and I haven't argued one way or another about whether her breakfast was relevant.

As to why the phone calls are relevant, I think that seems obvious, but if it isn't then I can explain. If someone innocently walks into an apartment and finds things looking odd, such as for instance, blood, then one might quickly check the apartment and find someone's door locked and then try to call the someone to see what is up. When there's no answer, then one might call another roommate. At that point, confused and frightened, one might quickly try another number for the person, try the first number again, etc., and in rising panic decide to call mom for advice. Then when mom says to call the police, one might call the police.

If I want to understand what happened that day, with a view towards making up my own mind, then all of these well-referenced and - as far as I know - undisputed facts seem relevant and interesting to our readers. You can see something similar at Death of Marilyn Monroe#Timeline.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are violating WP:SYN. Couldn't we just remove all of the extranious details and write "in a series of phonecalls, Knox attempted to reach out to Ketcher, Knox's flatmate, and Knox's mother?" Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no violation of WP:SYN. And no, saying that is not enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you make a proposal, then? Certainly you agree that this article is fully bloated, right? Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think this article is bloated overall. In parts yes, in parts no, but my current judgment is that it could - on the whole - be about 25%-50% longer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not fully bloated....it is lacking known content in regards to the phone calls. What I don't understand is why the stance on not just allowing the content of the phone calls so each of us can review and make our own conclusion in regards to the time and purpose of each phone call. Joe Miller65 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Joe, the content is in the article at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This section is intended to provide a framework for people trying to understand the known events around the time of the murder, not to prove anyone guilty or innocent. Perhaps the most important point is that Kercher walked home alone at a time when all her flatmates were somewhere else. Including the four young men in the downstairs flat. At this point, I am still in the process of adding details and finding references to replace the Massei Report and especially judges report from Guede's trial. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The changes I have made lean rather heavily on Dempsey as the source, but hopefully this is a more readable description of these events. The discussion of time of death probably belongs in the trial section. Each expert witness seemed to come up with a different time. The lady hearing the scream also belongs in the trial section along with the tow truck driver and occupants of the car that broke down across the street who didn't hear a scream. Possible additions to this section are the failed calls from Meredith's phone to her mother and UK bank and the received MMS message. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your cite says: -she “heard running on the metal staircase and then running through the leaves going in the other direction, it was at least two people". That is different from heard “running from the flat”, which isn’t possible to do anyway. I am hoping that can be removed. The scream supposedly made a big impression on the jury. It is strong element to show how the jury reasoned against Knox/Sollecito. I would leave it but temper it to say a ‘neighbor testified she heard a’. Personally I have big doubts, but that’s me. I am with you about the TOD.Moodstream (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My plans

I'm going to step away from this article for a few days. I've ordered several books (six in fact) from Amazon, to be delivered electronically, and I plan to read all of them. I basically grabbed everything I could find (both mainstream publisher and self-published) from a search on Amazon for Kindle-store books about Amanda Knox. I might have missed one or two, but I figure six is enough for one weekend. :)

I would encourage several other people to do the same, just in the interest of harmony and happiness if nothing else. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Top Guilty books - Angel Face, Darkness Descending. Top Innocent books - Murder In Italy, Monster of Perugia, Injustice in Perugia.Issymo (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have Angel Face, which is what I'm reading first. I don't think Darkness Descending is available in a digital edition. I have the other 3 you mention. And then I also have "Take me with You" and "Amanda Knox and the Perugia Murder". If I end up reading one "guilty" and one "innocent", which "innocent" should I read?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is if your read one Innocent book it should be 'Murder In Italy'.Issymo (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard to answer. They are different. Candace Dempsey's book is the best selling and won an award. It is thoughtful and humane. She is as nice as Nadeau is gossipy and nasty. She pretty clearly believes in innocence but is not an advocate in the usual sense. Hers is a very subtle book, full of detail the importance of which you don't recognize unless you know the case well. But she treats the crucual period between the murder and the arrest better than anybody. The Waterbury book is a powerful attack on some of the technical parts of the prosecution case--the DNA, the luminol, the theory of the breakin. The Fisher book is basically a thorough compendium of the entire innocence case. Although you don't need more reading, I recommend that you have a look at Frank Sfarzo's blog, Perugia Shock. He began believing that the pair was guilty and switched dramatically. He is an Italian in Perugia writing in a marvelous quirky English. He was the only reporter writing in English that was actually in court each day. Lately he has taken to excoriating the police in Perugia at some risk. Also, you really should go to Injustice in Perugia and read Steve Moore's essays along with those of a retired forensic engineer named Ron Hendry. Arent't you glad you asked? :-) PietroLegno (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Two Important DOCs to read are the Massei Report, which is the judge's reasoning for conviction -http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=259 and the Appeal Summaries - http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html Issymo (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful that you are willing to do that. I have my own views of the case, of course, but the only thing I really want is for Wikipedia to be fair. The case won't be decided here but we have somehow to make it clear that every bit of the case has been bitterly contested. I would only add is that it is also important to try to get a handle on the 450 pages or so that make up the Knox and Sollecito appeals. These are a specific, point-by-point attempt to refute the original sentencing report. They contain impressive discussions of cell phone and computer recirds as well, of course, as DNA, luminol etc. Taken together, they are the single best source of information on the current defense case. Only parts of these have been translated by humans. Adding to the confusion, there are late supplemental filings that I don't know have been made available at all.PietroLegno (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

More reliable sources for related articles: I am also hoping that work on this article will help find more reliable sources for many related articles, such as "Italian Code of Criminal Procedure" or DNA "RFU peak" or "PCR amplification" or "Low copy number" (DNA) or "False confession" or "Rules of evidence in Italy" or "Witness tampering" or "Crime scene contamination" (etc.). -Wikid77 22:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The only portion of the supplemental filings I have seen is located here: http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery8914.shtml?1

There is also a brief summary of that here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6545612&postcount=14547 . RoseMontague (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A good source for the Italian code of criminal procedure is here: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.altalex.com%2Findex.php%3Fidnot%3D2011 RoseMontague (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A terrific article on LCN DNA: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10408000 RoseMontague (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a great source on false confessions including transcripts of confessions and testimony along with an exhaustive study on this subject: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/librarysite/garrett_falseconfess.htm RoseMontague (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldnt you come in Perugia next month? There will be held a workshop on the Meredith Kercher murder case [12] as part of the International Journalism Festival events. I would be glad to provide you an invite directly from the IJF founders, if necessary.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it would be great if people could take photographs of the house at Via della Pergola 7 (actually along Via San Antonio?), plus the University for Foreigners Perugia (try to avoid close-up views of people to avoid disputes about that), the town square Piazza Grimana, and photograph other scenes which would show the general areas for this and related articles. Thanks. -Wikid77 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously anyone is welcome in Perugia, but this invite was intended specifically to Jimbo Wales. Wikid77, there's plenty of photos of Perugia on Commons, and bad journalism around this case make you look for a wrong name. Piazza Grimana isnt the official name of that square, that's indeed Piazza Fortebraccio. There are photos of the University for Foreigners as well. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't overlook the Massei report. That's required reading http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=259 (and don’t skip p 367, where it explains “Why two young people, strongly interested in each other, with intellectual and cultural curiosity, he on the eve of his graduation and she full of interests, resolved to participate in an action aimed at forcing the will of Meredith, with whom they had, especially Amanda, a relationship of regular meetings and cordiality, to the point of causing her death [?]” The answer may shock you!Moodstream (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My advice to people is always to start with the primary sources. To borrow from Dr. House, in a crime, "Everybody lies". One of my greatest mistakes once was believing someone who protested their innocence to me in a crime, and going to bat for them, without reading the relevant police report first. Moreover, a grounding in primary sources then gives a sense of the reliability of a secondary source, as to whether the research is good or if they're playing fair with the evidence. But ultimately, it's not like in the stories, there's rarely a dramatic revelation (every once in a while, but not often). It's usually just a mess of charges and counter-charges. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are the primary sources available in English? I don't think I have time to read 10,000 pages in Italian, since I'd have to learn Italian first. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Massei report is available in English here: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=259 (at the bottom of the page). The website is hosted by a group that clearly favors guilt, and the translation is sponsored by the website. Nevertheless, the translation itself is excellent and neutral. The authors deserve a great deal of credit. Regardless of point of view, everyone refers to it.

Another great collection of English language source documents can be found on Candace Dempsey’s blog hosted by the Seattle PI, here: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/ (right hand side of page, scroll down). Especially look at Amanda Knox’s note voluntarily given to the police the morning following her arrest. The meaning of it is hotly debated, but it is very useful for assessing her state of mind at that time. I recommend that you read it first: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html - apologies to PietroLegno for butting in.Moodstream (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone should read the Massei report if only to see what a gawdawful, bad faith document it is. It literally beggars belief. It is vague, meandering and digressive, a document clearly intended to intimidate you with its length rather than impress you with its logic. It runs on to something like 425 pages when a crisp 75-100 pages would do the trick if there were clear evidence of guilt. It is as clear an example of kitchen sink throwing as you will ever find. The document is absurdly self contradictory and speculative in places. Massei misrepresents testimony, accepts absurdities as truth, makes egregious errors in his analysis of things like computer operating systems, posits the existence of evidence never produced at trial, and, when he cannot think of what else do do--as in the case of the blood spatter testimony--he just ignores testimony altogether. To give you an idea of how absurd it gets, Massei spends time telling us that Amanda had to be lying about being at Raffaele's apartment because a cell phone call she made when she said she was there was picked up by a tower that doesn't reach the apartment. A few pages later we learn, to our great mystification, that all of the calls she made when she was indisputably at Raffaele's apartment were picked up by the very tower Massei said didn't reach there. The reason for this is apparent if you know the case well. The university scientists who testified for the defense did a superb job demolishing police theories about cell phone traffic. But Massei, as he reflexively did in so many instances here, credited the police version even though it was absurd. PietroLegno (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to insist again that if one is going to read the entire Massei report, one is morally obligated two read the two appeals documents, which, in the view of this humble correspondent, completely demolish Massei. Raffaele's appeal is particularly strong. A good English translation is available here:

http://docs.docstoc.com/pdf/4444408/5c299b05-c6e7-4400-a2a9-1d586ed6e4c0.pdf I don't know that Amanda's appeal has been translated fully by humans. A useful summary and the the Italian original are available here: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html Perhaps Rose Montague can direct us to an English version of the full Amanda appeal. PietroLegno (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible for anyone to get trial transcripts uploaded to Wikisource?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly Berean, the transcripts are not available for that kind of thing. Many people on both sides have wished that they were. I noticed that Candace Dempsey is now posting here. Maybe she can comment on how you get access to trial documents. My understanding is that you had to go to the police station and if you wanted to make copies the per page cost was very high. So whenever you hear someone say "I have read the transcripts and...." you can be pretty sure they are not being truthful. Most likely no more than a handful of people did. However, I did hear it said that ABC news has purchased the entire case file for its researchers to peruse. It would be interesting to learn of that is true or just a rumor.PietroLegno (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve Moore: The Interrogation That Never Was

One of the real advancements made here recently has been the recognition that Steve Moore, a 25-year veteran of the FBI who has himself headed criminal and terrorism investigations, is indeed a credible and reliable resource. In his important essay "The Interrogation That Never Was" Moore makes the following observation:

"If you are going to have 12 detectives available all night for an interrogation, you need to let them know well in advance. You need to schedule them, to change their days off, etc. You have to pay them overtime. In the real world, 12 detectives all night is something that has to be signed off by higher-ups. What does this tell us? It tells us the interrogation was NOT a rapidly unfolding case where lives were at risk—they planned this interview well in advance, and INTENTIONALLY overnight. They knew Amanda was available all day (as they had interviewed her for 35 hours in the past four days). There was no deadline. The lead detective in the case, Giobbi, had already said they “knew” Amanda was the murderer by this point. So they did not believe there was a murderer on the loose “out there.” (And yet there was).

No, the reason they interrogated Amanda all night was to break her. Not get the truth, not get answers, not make Perugia safer; but to break her so that she would say what they wanted her to say."

Again, if we attempt to assess what actually went on the night that night we ignore the remarks of this seasoned professional only at our peril. The police claim that Amanda Knox was a "witness" and not a "suspect" at this point completely lacks plausibility. Amanda's mother was due to arrive the next day and would get her a lawyer. They had a deadline after all.PietroLegno (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how important the essay is on its own terms, but along with the other essays by him on the Injustice In Perugia website, it isn't a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve Moore is a reputable source in regards to many aspects of this case. He is highly qualified and regardless of where he is published has no bearing on whether Mr. Moore is a qualified source. There is nothing wrong with hearing more about what took place during an interogation, of which Mr. Moore is more than qualified to examine and explain what took place during an illegal interogation.Joe Miller65 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You are just engaged in silly talk FormerIP. Steve Moore's bona fides have been examined and vetted by all of the major networks here. He has headed--literally been the lead officer--on major investigations. He was given access to all the critical crime scene and case records here. In short he is as relevant an expert as we are likely to find. The series of articles he wrote for IIP are his first formal statements on the case. It was these that were picked up by the networks who, after verifying his credentials, began solliciting his views on the Knox-Sollecito case. Injustice in Perugia may be the vehicle for these initial essays, but they are Moore's alone and he is obviously a reliable source. You are obviously attacking Moore because you don't like his conclusions. To pretend that his views should not be included in a balanced, neutral article is absurd. PietroLegno (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way that some essays by some guy (with, apparently, bona fides) on a self-published (by some other guy) advocacy website can considered reliable, particularly since the author doesn't appear to have ever published anywhere else. But I guess there's no point in fighting the tide here anymore. Please make as much use of them as you like. --FormerIP (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Per our WP:RS criteria, only mainstream news media reports -- or WP:RS-compliant books or documentaries -- on Steve Moore's opinions should be included. They also must always be worded in such a way so that readers know that they are his opinions and/or claims and that Wikipedia is not stating them as if they were facts. (The same goes for all other opinions in the article that are disputed, just so nobody gets the idea that I consider Moore a less factual source than other opinionated sources.) So an interview with network news would be fine, but additional claims made on a blog would not. That also goes to notability requirements: if someone is making an argument in a non-RS source that is ignored by the RS-compliant sources, it does not warrant being mentioned in the article. I would hope the partisans for both sides would understand and agree to that. DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I should get-into-it, but where you state - "if someone is making an argument in a non-RS source that is ignored by the RS-compliant sources, it does not warrant being mentioned in the article" - that's sort of the problem in nutshell. People outside Wikipedia's culture ordinarily have a hard time grasping and dealing with Wikipedia's internal rules. And Wikipedia culture insiders often don't understand just how utterly insane those rules can seem to an average person (note careful phrasing, and please don't rush to explain to me the reasoning behind those rules, it's not relevant to my point). So you can't just ask cultural outsiders to understand Wikipedianism, that's not going to work -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This comes down to WP:SPS, where three or four angels dance on the head of this pin.

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I presume, but don't know for sure, that Moore has done so.
"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." How much latitude do you have to talk about evidence in a trial before you're talking about the BLP itself?
"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" Moore's statement of opinion seems notable; but where do we draw the line between reporting his support for the cause and using his support as a fact about the case?
Also, one might actually argue that the publication by advocates makes it less of a self-published source, hence more generally usable. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The problem is that WP:SPS as insider jargon looks like gobbledegook to those unversed in those rules of evidence, and the specifics are a very specialized type of argument. Basically, one needs the equivalent of a degree in Wikipedian Law, or at least parawikilegal expertise. I think even Jimbo The Co-Founder Himself got caught up this cultural issue, in the way he made his points and handled the responses to them (to put it as NPOV as possible ...). Thus, given this issue, it's not workable to expect outsiders to act like insiders. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Would a blog be considered a good source for a term paper, thesis or dissertation? Would you agree that non-Wikipedians should understand those kind of analogies?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Yes :-) (depending on the writer) 2) Assumed an answer to 1) which has been contradicted. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(Not directed at Seth) ~~Shameful is the professor who allows someone to substitute true roll-up-your-sleeves research for anecdotal shortcuts to thinking~~. Shameful is the professor who allows someone to substitute anecdotal shortcuts to thinking in lieu of true roll-up-your-sleeves research. No one over 30 could feign ignorance to what I speak of...they had to do it at some point or they were cheated in their education. They probably thought their professors insane when s/he explained footnotes and proper citations and they dreaded having to do it. Now, years later, they pretend not to know and think Wikipedians insane for asking for proper sources. They must have been absent from class on that day. 8^/
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong here, but I should point out that Americans use the phrase "substitute A for B" to mean that A is what is kept and B is what is discarded. I've noticed that Europeans from the former Roman empire sometimes use this the opposite way - that B is kept and A discarded. We should watch that this doesn't create confusion. Wnt (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've reworded correctly above. Thank you for pointing that out...no, you're not wrong. Is my change clearer? Good observation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The people who do this generally speak perfect English. I'm not sure, but I suspect that everyone in America is actually wrong about this usage, but what can I do about it? Wnt (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting former users unblocked

I apologize that I did not focus more time on the many users blocked from discussing this subject, when I was more focused on the technical issues. To get people unblocked, users must go to a blocked user's talk-page and offer support to unblock them. To my horror, I have discovered some users seem to have been blocked merely for waiting too long to post replies, then replying at AfD/MfD discussions, which gave the false impression that they were improperly WP:Canvassed to join a discussion, rather than merely waiting weeks for an opportunity to post messages where it might make a difference. I, myself, replied "out of the blue" at a suspicious time, at an MfD discussion involving a former MoMK editor, because news broke in the Knox/Sollecito appellate trial that a new, impartial judge, would allow a Rome university to re-examine the DNA evidence, plus re-questioning of homeless man Antonio C. (now arrested on other charges), and possibly dismantling the kitchen-knife handle to analyze inside. That news prompted me to check discussions on WP. We must emphasize that people hear national news, or see search-engine news for the month, about the re-trial, then go to Wikipedia discussions, some of which happen to be WP:AfD or WP:MfD discussions, and that does not mean everyone was canvassed by email to "swing the !votes" in a debate. Several people seemed to have been indef-blocked, merely because they posted replies after months of merely reading Wikipedia discussions without editing. Some editors were blocked on December 23, 2010, when "suspiciously" returning to edit WP pages after these headlines appeared, just days before those users were blocked:

Dec. 18, 2010 - "Amanda Knox case: DNA evidence to be reviewed following appeal", Guardian.co.uk
Dec. 18, 2010 - "Amanda Knox granted full review of DNA evidence | World news", Guardian.co.uk
Dec. 18, 2010 - "Judge in Knox appeal allows new evidence reviews, witnesses - CNN"
Dec. 18, 2010 - "Court OKs Review of DNA Evidence in Knox Case - The Early Show", CBS News
Dec. 18, 2010 - "Italian court OKs evidence review for Knox - FoxNews.com"
Dec. 20, 2010 - "Appeals hearing brings early Christmas gift for Amanda Knox"
Dec. 20, 2010 - "Amanda Knox's Mom: She's "Terrified" - The Early Show - CBS News"

Just days after those webpages appeared, numerous people returned to edit Wikipedia, and they were blocked as WP:MEATPUPPETs, of an imagined conspiracy.
We obviously need to quickly change WP policies to prevent users from being blocked when they edit Wikipedia just days after a major news story breaks all across the world, regardless of how long their usernames had been inactive. Meanwhile, when we are changing long-term WP policies, we need to devote time to unblocking the specific people who have suffered because of these problems. The admin who blocked them, in December 2010, later resigned from WP on 25 January 2011, so there will be no opposition from him when getting those users unblocked. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:15, revised 05:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is all of this being posted here, and not at a more suitable venue? The talk page functions as a point of discussion for the article, not user contributions. I would suggest taking such strong convictions to WP:ANI, where it can be left to administrators to judge whether a stream of tendentious and blocked SPAs should be granted the full and general reprieve that some commentators have called for. Super Mario Man 05:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to also post at WP:ANI would be good, but there has been the problem that the numerous usernames (and people) unfairly blocked from editing had been coming to this page about their suffering, as the place to look for help, because they viewed the blocks as connected to this talk-page, which appears to be a correct conclusion (based on their edits to this talk-page, then MfD edits, then indef-blocks). However, I agree to take this issue to several other venues.
It is clear to me that what has occurred in the control of this article will change numerous Wikipedia policies, for years to come, about allowing editors to expand all facets of a subject (WP:54CARDS) and institute fair-blocking treatment of editors. If editors had been blocked only 1 month, the problem would be over, but they were indefinitely blocked. Reforms from here can be made in many areas and many venues to improve Wikipedia. The concerns here are not just about two students in prison, but about the whole topic plus the editors who write about it, and what results when many things all go wrong at the same time. This is a wiki-disaster which has led to the wiki-death or resignation of numerous users, and it will require many of us to work together to solve these problems and reform the system to avoid future problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Numerous Wikipedia policies will be changed and reforms made? May I respectfully ask what this prediction is based on, besides a four-sentence essay of your own composition, cited in your response but created only yesterday? This is overstatement and exaggeration. Super Mario Man 06:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is perfectly acceptable here. It provides the context for understanding how the Knox-Sollecito article got in such terrible shape to begin with. People have to understand that one of the principal arrows in the pro-guilt quiver was to arbitrarily and capriciously ban editors. The more effective editors like Charlie Wilkes were especially targeted. PietroLegno (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is entirely appropriate to discuss the case here. In any ANI discussion, one of the first questions they tend to ask is whether the offender was regarded as counterproductive on the article talk page. Besides, few of us appear willing to start a formal ANI appeal for someone we don't know, when we have the impression that the appeal will be counted against them if it were to fail.

From #The Case of Charlie Wilkes as discussed above, I would like to suggest several policy statements that I would like to see introduced in a larger forum.

It is not right to block a good user indefinitely solely because he has responded to an e-mail canvas about a "!vote" or you regard him as a "meatpuppet". Even if you actually knew he was e-mailed, that is. Such an offense is - at worst - no worse than a simple violation of 3RR, and should be treated as such. Certainly it is not worse than an actual act of vandalism, for which forgiveness is always available. It is actually pretty hard to distinguish between being legitimately asked to look at an issue, and being inappropriately canvassed, and those who respond to a personal invitation generally feel like they are acting in good faith. Especially when it is a discussion that is relevant to editing they have been doing, which they could have happened across on their own.
It is not right for an administrator to say that he has 'reviewed a user's block' when in fact he has merely laid on additional charges not discussed in any previous proceeding. I am speaking, for example, of Wilkes' "appeal" in which the admin says that he was violating "NOTAFORUM" rather than contributing (despite the fact that under overly harsh COI regs he was strongly discouraged from editing himself rather than proposing edits). An appeal of a block should mean that the admin looks at the actual reason given for the block and determines whether it a) was ever valid and b) whether it's something the editor might stop doing in the future.
Editors using their own names, who have voluntarily disclosed a conflict of interest, need special protection from administrative blocks. By special protection I mean "innocent until proven guilty" - especially for charges like "meatpuppetry" and "sockpuppetry" that (originally were meant to) revolve around the concealment of identity. Leaving a named editor with a big fat block notice on his userpage after he tried to contribute his knowledge to Wikipedia is just as bad as writing up an attack article against an obscure BLP and full-protecting it. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent point because it seems like character assassination of the person claiming to use his real name, and that is an issue which should be given special consideration. -Wikid77 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Other talk-pages about changing policies: It might be necessary to post suggestions for better policies into multiple talk-pages, in order to alert enough people, where multiple policies (or guidelines) could be changed together. In particular:
• Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy - to suggest using short blocks
• Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing - to suggest reduced sanctions
• Wikipedia:VPP - Village pump for policy issues, to ask opinions
• Wikipedia:ANI - administrators notice board, to get a quick reply but unlikely to change policies

In general, posting first at Village Pump section WP:VPP often gets quick replies, but those replies might not be focused on all the major issues, but just on some aspect that caught a person's interest to reply. Typically, the discussions might take weeks to make a small change, or months to realize there is no consensus to change a policy. -Wikid77 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"It might be necessary to post suggestions for better policies into multiple talk-pages, in order to alert enough people, where multiple policies (or guidelines) could be changed together." WP:CANVAS? WP:GAME? WP:POVPUSH? I sincerely hope that these suggestions aren't serious. Is it likely that the editing at a topic covering one murder will send cascades of change surging through the upper echelons of Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Again, I doubt it - I regrettably suspect that this is quite over-optimistic. Super Mario Man 18:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of suggesting a change at the Canvassing page as suggested above, but then I read, "Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary" Now bear in mind that in the course of his 37 edits, Charlie Wilkes was never warned about canvassing. (actually he was never accused of canvassing but only of responding to an assumed campaign which apparently didn't exist but was based on media coverage, but he wasn't warned about that either) Apparently reading policies is not actually part of a Wikipedia administrator's job. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ground rules

I would like for us to agree to follow some ground rules. Editing on the article is still light now, but based upon the disparity of opinions expressed above I worry that there may be a lot of major changes coming soon that will be reverted and fought over. If we as a whole agree to basic principles, or ground rules, before editing it may make everyone's work easier. I will create subsections to make follow up discussion easier. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The article cannot advance an opinion

Our WP:NPOV policy makes it clear that Wikipedia does not take sides and merely reports what sources say. If you have an opinion on this case, that in itself is fine and unavoidable as humans do inevitably have opinions, but edits to the article itself must not promote them. Edits should be made only to more accurately reflect what the important sources say and in a way that does not slant the reader's resulting understanding of the topic towards a specific conclusion. I'm hoping this is uncontroversial and everyone agrees, as this is straight from Wikipedia policy. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinions should not be presented as facts

Any claim of fact should only be presented in context of who is making that claim. The only statements that can be listed as if they were facts, or presented in such a way so that readers think the article is saying they are facts, are those statements that are not disputed.

As one of many examples of biased statements presented in the article at one point: we cannot state as a fact that the knife contained Kercher's DNA; that's just an opinion. The prosecution says this based upon the claims of a forensic expert and the judge argued this in his report, but the defense lawyers and a number of other forensic experts say it has not been proven - and indeed may not be able to proven. Saying that it is true is taking a side.

The conclusions presented in the Massei report are not facts. Witness statements are not facts. Forensic claims from either side are not facts. What are facts are that the Massei report says this or that, or that a witness said whatever he or she said, and that a forensic expert argued something.

Whenever there is a notable dispute over key facts (notable would be from someone reliable sources have deemed as having notable comments on the case) that we can cite to a reliable source, we should include it. To do otherwise would be slanting the article, whether it is intentional or not. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sources are better than others

Just because something is considered a reliable source in general does not mean it is reliable for what it is being cited for. It also does not mean that there are not other sources that would be a better fit.

For example, a large number of the sources in this article are to tabloid newspapers with very slanted coverage or disturbing errors. Bad information or mere opinions presented as facts (see above) entered into the article are bad enough, but if people go to check the original sources and find slanted or sloppy coverage it's not as helpful as more objective and better researched reporting.

As a general rule, books or documentaries on the specific topic coming from notable publishers or companies should be preferred sources. Direct citations to primary sources for topics considered notable by books or mainstream news coverage are also very good. News broadcasts or articles from national networks or large city papers/news associations with known fact checking are good. News sources that are primarily opinion-centered and do not fact check claims should be avoided for factual references and, when used at all (preferably only when better sources for a notable claim do not exist), should be to document someone's opinion (if notable) only.

For example, both The Daily Mail and The Daily Beast have been previously discussed on the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Both have been determined to be reliable in a broad sense but mostly have content that is opinion-based instead of news-based. Therefore they are not generally usable as references for facts, especially when other sources are available. They can be used to show proof of someone's opinion, if it is notable. This is very important because both are currently used in this article in ways that they clearly should not be.

Note also that the same individual may be quoted in or write for multiple sources and one source may be better and more usable. Barbie Nadeau has been in both Newsweek and The Daily Beast. Newsweek would be a more mainstream news source and more reliable, as it has existing fact checking, a history of being a respected news source, tries to be more objective, etc. Nadeau is more free to insert her own opinion directly into the Daily Beast blog posts and other work, so even though it comes ultimately from the same person, the material is different. The same logic goes for Steve Moore being quoted in news media versus posting to a blog site. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but not about your DNA example. The court concluded that Kercher's DNA was on the knife. The defense argued that, yes, there was DNA on it, but it must be from contamination as it wasn't blood DNA, very sensitive blood test were run, and it would have been highly unlikely that there could have been a way to wash off the blood while keeping other DNA on it (or something like that). I think the article deals with this pretty fairly now.LedRush (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See below. DreamGuy (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

After every revolution comes a new constitution, and that looks like a great first draft. I don't think you need to come up with a rationale singling out the two publications you mention, though. If you want to remove material you don't like from the article, just do it and you'll know whether its problematic or not by what happens next. --FormerIP (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Open Letter

This blog post likely deserves some attention. My interest is simply in making sure that this entry accurately reflects what reliable sources have said and that no reliable sources are omitted based on anyone's agenda in either direction. I'm posting this notice on the BLP noticeboard and the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article should reflect reliable sources. But a blog post? One on a site which perhaps less than neutrally describes itself as ‘INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA: THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF AMANDA KNOX & RAFFAELE SOLLECITO’? And a post to such a blog which, when you click on the list of signatories, advertises ‘Zoosk: World’s greatest dating site’? Surely the kind of stuff an encyclopedia should turn up its nose at, rather than waste its time over. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider it our greatest honorable trait that we are always willing to take another look, always willing to review our work, and always willing to accept criticism. The post raises several quite straightforward objections that deserve to be answered with real answers, not jeers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but exactly which objections require real answers? As for jeers, how about their ‘mostly European’? Ian Spackman (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That a critic doesn't live up to our standards is not our concern. We can and should rise above that. One concern that I have is the claim that reliable sources that indicate reasons why one might be skeptical about the verdict in Amanda Knox' case have been systematically omitted from the article. I do not know yet if that claim is true, I merely point out that we should always be willing to explore such concerns thoughtfully. Another concern is whether or not our citations accurately reflect underlying sources. There is never a reason not to reassess such things, and to bring in more eyes to make an evaluation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic has been the subject to innumerable blog wars since the murder occurred, and many people in the blogosphere have tried to influence the Wikipedia article to match their beliefs. I'm a bit shocked that Jimbo would link to a piece that would be immediately deleted as an attack page and severe violation of WP:BLP if it were reproduced here verbatim. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The blog post raises legitimate objections. "Legitimate" in the sense of being the kind of objections that deserve to be taken seriously, not necessarily objections that we would agree with upon closer investigation. I'd love to see people here addressing those objections rather than attacking the blogpost.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, there's 27 Archive pages here. Do your own research. You will quickly note that nothing in that petition is new or hasn't been brought up here before, including the attacks on various editors who do not share the point of view expressed in the blog. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am doing my own research, and it doesn't look good. I see editors being blocked for single edits that are absolutely defensible on the thinnest of grounds. That's not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that was true at one time, but more recently editors who come in here looking to make changes which they believe will be more neutral but which the small and dedicated group of page watchers feel is too pro-Knox, the attacks all seem focused on the new editors. This post even has hints of it.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I should be blamed partly. I brought this blogpost ( came up on my wikipedia google alert) to attention of Jimbo. Neither of us are aware of the context and history of the article or subject. But innocently thought it may bring the attention of subject matter experts on this -- Tinu Cherian - 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A search on ANI , BLPN or NPOVN for Amanada Knox or Murder of Meredith Kercher will turn out a massive amount of prior discussions, with much on user conduct. A common thread however is that comments on content by uninvolved parties always express surprise that the article actually is neutral. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors interested in some of the back history can study Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher for a small snapshot sample of what this is all about. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

An internet petition with all of 60 signatures? Hmm, I am not seeing the compelling need for the founder to get involved here... --John (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The petition was followed by talk-page requests, as signs of growing concern among active editors, and there were over 215 signatures 3 days later. They were just requests, as a matter to check on the situation. -Wikid77 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

- A petition doesn't matter. Number of signatures doesn't matter. Getting it right is all that matters. I accept input from all kinds of sources, and we should always be willing to take another look.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This post cannot be used because it is not a Reliable Source for anything at all. I agree that the article should be edited "correctly", but that means we should follow WP policy and get reliable sources to back up specific suggestions on how to change the article.LedRush (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No one, least of all me, is arguing that the blog post should be used as a source. The blog post is a discussion of what has been going on here. It should be thoughtfully considered. Is it true that people have been banned for completely neutral edits? Yes. It is true that reliable sources have been systematically excluded? Yes. None of that is acceptable. I am not arguing for reinstating any of the badly behaved accounts from before - they are irrelevant to this discussion. My point is that badly behaved accounts are no excuse for bias.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Wales, I have been told this is not the place for the discussion so I apologize if I am out of line posting here. I am hopeful that you will take a moment to explain to me why Wikipedia refuses to allow a page for Amanda Knox. Her case is one of the biggest news stories of the decade. The explanations I have received have come from the group currently controlling this article. I feel their opinions are heavily biased. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Do you personally feel that a page detailing a major news story, such as the Amanda Knox case, should be forcefully ignored by Wikipedia? BruceFisher (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article is inaccurate and incomplete. Many credible sources have been omitted. PhanuelB did an excellent job of detailing the excluded information. He organized the information and sourced everything. He was banned from Wikipedia for his efforts. I agree with Mr. Wales. My blog should not be looked to by Wikipedia as a credible source. It appears that fact may be clouding the issue. The open letter asks Wikipedia to take an honest look at what has taken place here. No one is asking Wikipedia to use an advocacy blog as a credible source. The fact is credible sources have been provided to Wikipedia that are currently being ignored. That is the issue. Please read through the credible list of sources and take a look at all of the information that is currently non existent in the current "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article. You can read through PhanuelB's excellent work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhanuelB&action=historysubmit&diff=405159511&oldid=405089368 BruceFisher (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a rapid response squad. I generally agree that the article has a slight bias built in. This bias is perpetuated by being overly hostile to any potential editor who has a potential skepticism regarding the guilt of the accused (which in itself is probably a reaction from so many unsubstantiated edits which do not conform to WP policy from pro-Knox editors). This ensures that only editors with the "right" views on the case edit the article. Some examples of this bias are found in an over-reliance on the Massei report, the characterization of Knox supporters and her family's activities (the blog was right about that), and the muted criticism section regarding the trial. Obviously, though, the blog post cannot be used as a reliable source for anything at all, but I wish they would have made more specific edit requests with citations to reliable sources...and perhaps even came to engage in the editing of this article in conformity with Wikipedia policy. Although the article in its current form is not perfect, it is not broken either. It is generally fair, and the editors generally try to adhere to wikipedia policy in editing it, something that cannot be said for many editors who come here specifically to make the article "more fair" for Knox.LedRush (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you generally, but I think that the article has more problems than that. I just read the entire article from top to bottom, and I have concerns that most serious criticism of the trial from reliable sources has been excluded or presented in a negative fashion. I recommend reading all of this (it is long) and taking particular note of the sections "PhanuelB's Reliable Sources". Compare that to what appears in the article. I have drawn no firm conclusions, but there is enough here to warrant careful examination.

An additional concern, about which again I have drawn no firm conclusions, is that this edit led to a block. I just now personally ran checkuser and found nothing; I invite more experienced checkusers to follow up on my exploration. I am merely raising questions, not putting forward conclusions - at this time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Before this conversation gets too far along, I strongly suggest finding specific instances which you would like to change, propose an edit, and make sure that the edit is supported by a reliable resourse. Discussing the issue in general will not be helpful, and the editors on the board generally treat such discussions with hostility.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

PhanuelB's reliable sources were subject to extensive discussion at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 25#Criticism of the Knox Sollecito Trial. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll note here that the blocking admin mentioned above has retired from Wikipedia. I took the liberty of sending him a mail informing him of this discussion. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be really surprising if a checkuser now actually found something. The checkuser data is kept only from 3 months - and it's obviously been more than 3 months since September. It means nothing. T. Canens (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I just brought that up on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations, and the reply was "Checkuser data automatically expires in 3 months, so Jimmy running a checkuser now is meaningless.". I was going to post about it, but I needed to be very careful to avoid giving Jimbo an excuse to lash out with a nasty personal attack (a point I will stand on, given his actions) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The blogpost is quite misleading in a few ways. It is not true, as has been pointed out that the article "for the most part relies on obsolete and inaccurate British tabloid reports”. The only British tabloid source is the Mirror, for a piece written by the victim’s father, the use of which doesn’t seem unreasonable. I also don’t think the Kercher case is “one of the most controversial and heavily criticized judicial proceedings in modern European history”. It would be more accurate to say that it is a murder case which has received a fair amount of newspaper coverage because it involves sex and drugs and young people abroad. It is true, though, that the conviction of Amanda Knox was criticised in some media along the lines of “public lynching” and “kangaroo court”, as reported on the blog. I don’t think anyone objects per se to that type of material being included in the article, subject to proper consideration of noteworthiness, NPOV, weight and BLP. It’s obvious why this type of edit [13] would be reverted. The problem, if there is one, is that a more sophisticated approach hasn’t materialised. A couple of the sources proposed by the blog have been proposed before but rejected for good reasons (for example, on one occasion the material could only be sourced to the Injustice in Perugia website).

I’d take some convincing that the article needs to pay very much more attention to the “kangaroo court” stuff than it already does. If it looks like it does need to, I’d say this is because the article is, by comparison, overburdened with a blow-by-blow account of forensic evidence etc. If a consensus were to emerge that more info should be added, then sobeit, provided everything conforms to NPOV. But someone needs to kick off that discussion which no-one has been interested in doing in the past. I think it’s quite a complicated discussion once you get into it.

The blog post says that there are various inaccuracies in the article. This can’t be ruled out, but I think there have been such exhaustive discussions that virtually everything in the article has a reliable source which has been checked by editors with varying opinions on the case. At the present time, nothing is wrong with WP processes in that regard. If there are inaccuracies that have gone unnoticed, the talkpage is an open forum. --FormerIP (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that this edit should have been reverted. Condensed or summarized, sure, why not, that would be a perfectly ok editorial revision. But censoring the views of prominent journalists and newspapers because it doesn't fit an agenda, is the precise opposite of NPOV. CNN, CBS, New York Times. Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. Those are sources, and to pretend they don't exist is a mistake. (I would omit Donald Trump, as his views don't seem particularly relevant, except perhaps (perhaps) in a section on celebrity responses.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be seeing censorship of the views of prominent journalists, Jimbo. I'm seeing a lot of text dedicated to a non-neutral quote-farm. I think the correct thing would have been to revert and refer the editor to talk. However, I obviously didn't think so at the time. Instead, it looks like I initiated a discussion and then condensed or summarised the content: [14]. So, a perfectly ok editorial revision. It's been the stable version for quite a while at least. That doesn't make it holy, of course, but any editor remains free to challenge it at any time, so long as they are not subject to a block that has been extensively reviewed and repeatedly declined.

You say: "It is true that reliable sources have been systematically excluded? Yes.". I say: "Do you have any evidence of any improper behaviour in this regard?".--FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I request that you remove all of the indefinite blocks added by user:black Kite over the last 90 days and allow all those banned users to participate in this discussion. hard to be neutral when you have only editors from one side of the controversy represented - tjholme 155.70.23.45 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

People were blocked in the last 90 days? Things have been pretty quiet here since I've been around, and I thought I started here about 3 months ago. Hm...LedRush (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone contributing to this page has been indeffed during the last 90 days. --FormerIP (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of timing, there are several blocked editors that need to be part of this discussion. PhanuelB, wikid77 (not sure if that's correct) for sure. --Lilome (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been awhile since the purges of so many as 'sockpuppets'. Since last Fall anyway. Dont insult everyone involved by pretending you dont remember MLauba. You were in the middle of it. Black Kite did the actual blocking but the rest of you gatekeepers stood by and watched. Once again I ask, take off the blocks and let everyone have a say in this discussion. tjholme 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.70.23.45 (talk)

I haven't said anything actually, but I am most definitely not going to reverse any block that has been reviewed at ANI. I'll also note that Wikid77 isn't blocked and that his conduct has been above reproach for a long time here, which means that indeed, his perspective would be entirely welcome. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, just an observer but, you know, when the founder of wikipedia weighs in, maybe it's time to make an exception to unbanning people. This is kind of an exceptional instance don't you think? One of the issues is that alternate opinions are being banned unfairly. So that fact that it's been "reviewed" does not necessarily substantiate that the ban was fair. It's really easy to just claim something like this when the people who were banned are not there to defend themselves. (173.10.96.65 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

As a Wikipedia novice who has been observing this page for several months, might I suggest that the comments of Mr Wales should be taken seriously. Some respect and humility from some of the individuals who have taken control of the page would not go amiss. This is a controversial case, as anyone who follows the news or browses the internet will realise. It is controversial because the decision of the Italian court in 2009 and the processes leading up to conviction in terms of evidence gathering and prosecutorial conduct have been called into question by a number of named and respected individuals in both the UK and USA, many of whom have considerable experience in jurisprudence or evidence gathering. Their opinions have not been represented on this page and they have been dismissed as ‘individuals with a point of view’, despite the fact that they have clearly investigated the details of the case and have verifiably revealed its shortcomings. In my view, for the article merely to parrot the verdict of the 2009 trial as a neutral point of view without reflecting the deficiencies in the prosecution case, does not do justice to the subject. Some editors have been ignored or blocked simply because their views to not chime with those who control the page. May I suggest that some of these editors, PhanuelB, for example be reinstated and their contributions reassessed by editors who have been completely unconnected with this entry so far. NigelPScott (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Having just noticed this discussion, I'm a bit gobsmacked. The first thing is that Jimbo Wales is jumping in to promote the point of view of a blog that is, by its own admissions, an advocacy site for a particular point of view. OK, this is Jimbo's project, but I thought it was supposed to be built on principles of consensus and NPOV. Looking at the open letter on that site, it makes some claims which are specific and easy to verify, and others that are very vague. Like FormerIP, I picked out a very easily verifiable claim, that the current article "for the most part relies on obsolete and inaccurate British tabloid reports". Sorry, but that is complete bollocks. So, for me, the credibility of the whole thing starts to look pretty doubtful. Now, people are suggesting that we reinstate PhanuelB. A quick Google search of that name makes it clear that a person of that name is trying to fuel a controversy about the murder. So how is that person well-placed to write neutrally about any controversy? I seem to remember that when PhanuelB was editing here, people tried very hard to get him or her to make reasonable suggestions about improving the article but he or she seemed unwilling to enter into any consensus process. We could fill the article up with the opinions of a lot of people, with all possible shades of views, and all of whom have managed to get published. However, we have instead been trying to achieve neutrality by centring the article on verifiable events, rather than opinions (although I don't think we have overlooked all the opinions). Personally, I believe this is the most encyclopaedic approach. That's why I've invested a lot of time and effort in the article (along with a lot of others here). But if the consensus is that the article should give up reporting factual events, and instead should major in saying that Italy is a third world country where people are guilty until proved innocent and that the present trial was just a kangaroo court and a public lynching (all citable from the "sources" quoted in the open letter), please go ahead, but without me. Bluewave (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am very pleased to see Mr Wales participating in the discussion. I am hopeful that PhanuelB will be reinstated very quickly. His voice should have never been silenced and is much needed now. BruceFisher (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This line of discussion seems slightly odd to me. I am not sure why PhanuelB or any other editor who has been indefinitely blocked is required to make any changes to this article. Also, I once again strongly suggest that editors who want to affect change on this article make specific suggestions backed up by reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We have dealt with activist editing before, I think we have a decent model for dealing with it. We could use an article RfC or we could use a level of protection and/or flagged revisions, we have the option of article parole and of course activist editors can be restricted or coached. It's very clear that some people think that Knox is innocent, and not all of them are saying this solely on the basis of her nationality. More eyes are needed, I think. Jimmy is right, though, that we should not only be fair but we should be seen to be fair. If the result is no different, well, so be it. Our articles on evolution will never satisfy some people but they meet very high standards of balance as a result of at least listening respectfully yo those people. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito has been extremely controversial. Many feel that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongfully convicted. Wikipedia only allows minimal discussion of this controversy. This information is considered "off topic" on the Meredith Kercher page. Keep in mind this is the only page currently available on Wikipedia to discuss the case. Even though this has been called “the trial of the century” and hundreds of articles have been written discussing the controversy, Wikipedia refuses to allow a separate page for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. There is absolutely no explanation for this decision. This will be one of the biggest stories of the decade, yet Wikipedia not only chooses to ignore this fact, they prohibit anyone from creating a page to detail the events. How can Wikipedia be called an encyclopedia when they pick and choose what events in history they will permit discussion of? BruceFisher (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Scott Peterson has his own page, and he is less famous in the world than Amanda Knox. That alone shows bias. Can someone please explain to me why a page for Amanda Knox is not allowed.BruceFisher (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

While your argument is unconvincing, I agree with your position. However, you are unlikely to gain much support for your position here. In fact, I am convinced that the editors on this page will never allow an Amanda Knox article. However, as they have pointed out, the proper way to address this issue is not through this page. They tell us that we need to create an article and then try to get the consensus from the most recent articles for deletion action overturned. I have set up a page for making a Knox article here [15] and you are more than welcome to edit it. I have not, because I believe that all time I devote to that will be wasted unless people agree in concept that a Knox article is warranted. Again, the place for that argument doesn't seem to be here, and with this group of well organized editors against such an article, I doubt that the article will ever exist, despite my strong belief that WP policy clearly supports such an article. If you would like to discuss this further, I suggest we discuss this at my talk page or another venue, as it really doesn't belong. I also suggest looking at the archives on this page for past discussions. It will allow you to understand the arguments against inclusion so that you can better craft a Knox article and/or arguments in support of one.LedRush (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bluewave, your post perfectly encapsulates all that is wrong with this page. While a small coterie of like minded editors have been preciously seeking to preserve the entry in aspic as a summary of a faulty trial, the world has moved on. Wake up and smell the coffee. The reason why millions of people Google 'Amanda Knox' is because the trial is controversial and the Perugian judicial system stinks. Wikipedia needs to reflect this controversy, not pretend it doesn't exist and post 'case closed'. NigelPScott (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of being part of a "coterie of like minded editors", when I'm not. Also please don't claim to know what I'm seeking to do, when you clearly do not know. You are entitled to believe that the "Perugian judicial system stinks" but that is an extraordinary claim and you would need to find extraordinary sources if you want it to be reflected in the article. Bluewave (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to PhanuelB and many others, all it ever takes to be able to discuss any issues is two things, first to avoid attacking other editors, second, at least a tiny bit of willingness to listen and accept other people's arguments. The proponents of a view closer to the Open Letter who understand this are not blocked and have been participating to the discussions here. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am an Italian user on it.wikipedia, I give my contribute here as I see this discussion page. I must disagree with mr. Wales on his assessment of this "source list", as he writes: " I don't agree that this edit should have been reverted. (..) But censoring the views of prominent journalists and newspapers because it doesn't fit an agenda, is the precise opposite of NPOV. CNN, CBS, New York Times. Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. Those are sources, and to pretend they don't exist is a mistake. (I would omit Donald Trump, as his views don't seem particularly relevant, except perhaps (perhaps) in a section on celebrity responses.) " In fact, I think there is a wider aspect of the issue not to overlook: this "list" of sources is in fact an example of edit creating a NPOV problem. It is fair to say that comentators expressed criticism in a summary form. But those sources are not all reliable nor relevant, some of them (like Paul Ciolino) even changed opinion later. The case of a pulitzer on the New York times prize would deserve itself a mention, but it is possible to verify that while these commentors are famous, as journalists they are in fact not acknowledged with details of the case and part of the information they bring can be proven wrong. Hence I disagree as Wales defines them as "sources" without thorough assessment, the attribution of such a label seems hasty to me: the definition as source for them is dubious at least and should be researched putting caveats for each of them. They are commentators, not sources, they never provided accurate information or coverage of the case, in fact they never provided any coverage at all. By quoting them as if they were sources, as contributors that can be found on a scientific level, in fact we would obviously violate NPOV. Because they are in fact irrelevant, the list of them as "sources" may just have the efect to enlarge disproportionally a collateral discussion, and ultimately this amount of space to secondary judgement an opinions produces a change in the balance of information. Their relevance woud be not proportionate to their importance among information and sources about the case. Because their credibility is not established in relation to the murder case and because they are not really directly related, they produce in fact a change of topic: not focused on the page Murder of Meredith Kercher, but about a media phenomenon. As related to the case on a secondary level, this kind of commenters should maybe be considered under a proper chapter like "journalism" or "media show", or "opinions" or "emotional impact of the case on media", maybe even "activism". But in a summary form, without "taking the scene" and altering the balance and focus of the page, and they shall not be inserted as if they were sources. I think Wikipedia shall not follow and appease media stream, its value really is its potential to provide a quality standard. Aki 001 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "sources" in Wikipedia (WP:RS) refers more to the written documents, rather than the people who provide comments about the case. Articles are referenced by links to past documents, rather than wait for the current opinions of experts. In the U.S., journalists are typically considered as being objective about a topic, as opposed to the more general term "writers" as being those who are allowed wide speculation, or even fictional views about a topic. The argument that some people cannot be trusted because they "changed opinion later" is completely false, because even a jury would be unable to reach a verdict, as people had to change their opinions to agree on a verdict. Hence, the entire core of such restrictions about sources is incorrect, so unless you "change your mind" (trapped by your own argument), your conclusions cannot be used. Hence, by your own logic, you have nothing more to say. See the problems when discounting people if they change their minds? Of course, in Wikipedia, people are free to rethink an issue and reach another conclusion, and can post other messages despite having changed a viewpoint. -Wikid77 21:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Jimmy, one of the last times this came up at ANI, I took a look at the article (for the first time), and in my view the article was surprisingly neutral given the controversy surrounding the case. That was some months ago and the article may have changed considerably in the meantime, but what happens if we all take another look and decide that the complaints from a blog writer pushing a very definite point of view are without merit? What will you do then? Reso lute 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to look at an article and know whether "smoking guns" have been systematically edited out. I've read various post mortems about murder cases gone wrong (Leonard Peltier etc.) and I would say that when second guessing a prosecution often the most damning details are very subtle. Someone could take them out and an onlooker might never notice, but it would take away the whole case.

There is absolutely no reason why we should not welcome the help of an offline advocacy group in tracking down interesting new sources for an article. NPOV is not some imaginary monochromatic gray - it is a play between all the colors of the ideological spectrum, working together to produce a panchromatic white light that can pull out every shade from what it illumines. You just have to make sure that you're putting stuff in, not taking stuff out, and all will be well. Wnt (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I just took a stab at the first "false claim" they mentioned, the luminol and the bloody footprints. The Daily Beast source cited backs up what the article says - but it also says that the defense showed video of the person collecting evidence which showed (they imply) that she hadn't changed gloves when she testified she had (and should have). So the claims of crime scene contamination have much better backing than just the letter from the American academics which is cited. The article currently presents the prosecution's evidence and not that from the defense. This is just one dot of one "i" that I looked at, but it was missing - and so I say the petition's claims deserve careful examination as Jimbo says.

I would further say in general that I spotted some sources reporting from a time when the prosecution had presented but the defense had not had a chance to rebut. Such sources can be used, but because they don't show both sides we have to be very cautious to make sure that we don't miss covering the other side of the story. I think that specifically labeling all sources like this with something like (interim coverage of prosecutor's case) is actually worth doing here. Wnt (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This goes the issue of how to reach NPOV in an article like this, which would be a discussion well worth having. One possible view would be that we give extensive coverage to the case of the prosecution on the one hand and the case of the defence on the other. But it isn't obvious that this should be our standard (I think our article already leans too far in that direction). How would it apply, for example, in the case of Harold Shipman or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi? I rather think it should be about considering sources on their individual merits. Three will always be scope for improving the article.

I guess my point is that, if the article doesn't conform to your conception of what NPOV should be, then that is a good reason to raise the issue. But I don't accept that it would be a good reason to assume that the article must be being sat on by collection of crooked and oppressive editors.

By the way, thank you for going to trouble of spot-checking one of the claims in the blog. I don't think it's surprising that the material checks out given the number of eyes that have been on the article. But there's our headline. --FormerIP (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just a blog claim. Amanda's appeal [16] (English summary [17]) discusses the "Luminol revealed footprints" starting at page 114 and points out that they tested negative for blood. It's just one of many article claims sourced to early news reports written before the defense case was presented. Statements in the forensic evidence section sourced to the judge's report on Guede's trail where no defense case for the other two suspects was presented also have this same problem. Another issue is In the "Events Surrounding the Murder" section. The witness report of hearing a scream and 11 PM time of death were disputed at trail. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales has been exceedingly polite and professional in his treatment of this article. The fact is that there is no argument for redirecting "Amanda Knox" to "Murder of Meredith Kercher", since "O.J. Simpson" does not redirect to "Murder of Nicole Simpson", "Ed Gein" does not redirect to "Murder of (any of Gein's victims)", and so on and so forth. I am shocked that regular contributors to Wikipedia are unable to see the way in which this simple mechanism breaks NPOV. Can Wikipedia really afford the publicity of a group of its writers and editors getting together to try to manipulate public perception of an ongoing criminal investigation? The answer is unequivocally "no", and in pursuing this behavior you are directly contributing to the fiscal problems that have plagued this site since its inception. --User:Jcities (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is exactly right and I hope he gets that there has been a clamp down, not just limited to reliable sources and not just limited to not allowing a page for Amanda Knox. The people who have been blocked don't want a this or a that page, just an article that is neutral. As it is, it is not. That is not attributable merely to exclusion of reliable sources or any other specific limitation that preserves the integrity of the bias, it is an agenda for the page, which is against Wikipedia's rules.Perk100 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Perk100

Perhaps the article should be called "The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito", or something to that effect. I'm not sure that separate pages for people involved in the case are necessary. The article is about the trial and the international media coverage around it, which is what makes the topic noteworthy, not the murder itself.Perk100 (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Perk100

It is important to note that this case is ongoing. Italy allows 2 appeals. Detractors will say that the court ruled, so the page should be slanted to suit the court ruling. According to Italian law, guilt has not yet been determined. From reading the current article you would never know this fact. There is a lot of chatter outside of Wikipedia. I urge everyone here not to be influenced by advocacy groups on either side of this debate. It is important to look at all of the facts and present them fairly. An advocacy group may have brought this problem to the attention of Mr. Wales but it will be the honest facts that that will influence much needed change. BruceFisher (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the case is ongoing, the article can be expanded to describe issues which have been reported about the appeal process, for over a year now (since before March 2010 last year). -Wikid77 22:01, 25 March, revised 13:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia puts far too much weight on official judgements, which is inappropriate except in the hard sciences. Just imagine how a Wiki-article on the Nancy Smith case would have looked until 2009. You would have a lot of reliable reports that the convicted people are innocent, yet these claims would not have been given a proper weight. The latest development in this case would prove that it would be inappropriate to put so much weight on the outcome of the justice system; the High Court has ordered them to return to jail because proper procedure for acquittal was not followed, the actual evidence for guilt/innocence is not relevant here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is complex. But I think some of your premises are wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be cautious about how much weight it puts on official judgements, per WP:PRIMARY. This may be questionable (I tend to think so). An article on Nancy Smith in 2009, should have reflected the reliable sources at the time. I'm not very familiar with Nancy Smith, but I'm presuming you're pointing out that people's understanding of the subject changed over time. However, WP:BALL. Your argument that it is wrong to put weight on the outcome of the criminal justice system because of something decided by the High Court has an obvious problem of logic to it. --FormerIP (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit: Forensics Section

The article reads: "Knox's DNA was found on a kitchen knife, recovered from Sollecito's flat, and Kercher's DNA[52] was found on the blade.[53] The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck.[29][54] At trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment.[55] A group of American academics wrote an open letter in 2009 expressing concern that contamination of this evidence was a possibility, noting in particular that, whilst DNA was found on the knife, tests for blood were negative.[56]"

The biggest issue that the defense has with "Kercher's DNA" found on the blade is missing from the article. Both appeals make it clear that the biggest issue is that the DNA was of LCN variety and proper LCN testing procedures were not done. That does reflect somewhat in the article's statement that "contamination of this evidence was a possibility" but is not given the importance that reflects reality.RoseMontague (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made that observation in the past, and agree with this edit request. This is an important distinction.LedRush (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Source the claims, then. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Page 249 and 250 of the Massei Report mentions that the DNA evidence from the knife blade was low copy number and that the profile peaks were lower than established guidelines. --Footwarrior (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The article reads: Luminol revealed footprints made in blood in the flat, compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[24]:373[49]

This should read: Luminol-revealed footprints all tested negative for blood and none contained the DNA of the victim. Source for information: 1. The Massei Report. Massei, G. (4 March 2010). "Sentenza, Knox Amanda Marie, Solliceto Raffaele" (in Italian). Retrieved 9 July 2010. 2. Maria D'Alia, Il Delitto Di Perugia: L'Atra Verita (The Crime of Perugia: The Other Truth), page 125-8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Miller65 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe Miller65 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Massei report does mention that the DNA sample on the knife in LCN. It doesn't conclude that this is a problem, though. It also doesn't conclude that tests were not carried out properly - on the contrary, it sees no problem with any of the DNA evidence. It also doesn't say anything about bloodstains testing negative for blood or not containing the victim's DNA. --FormerIP (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We have many sources that have said that the LCN DNA was a problem. You've excluded them in the past because in your own OR you disagreed with them (I think, I forget all the details). If we have sources that say the DNA is LCN, we should include it. If the method of testing the DNA is criticized in sources, that should also be included.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Provide the sources, please. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see above for sources affirming that it was LCN and lower than established guidelines.LedRush (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No sources have been presented in this section except for one primary source, the "Massei report," which we should not be using to drive our article (Wikipedia articles rely on secondary sources), and further, no quotes from said report are provided that would let us figure out if the report says what RoseMontague alleges it says. No reliable secondary sources have been presented that discuss the LCNness of the DNA and the alleged deficiencies of LCN dna. Please provide sources, quotes and links if possible. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And having now reviewed the page and section of the "Massei report," I find that it is merely a summary of what a consultant to the Sollecito defense said about the DNA. As I said before, we should not be taking the statements of paid advocates (either for the prosecution or the defence) as fact. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Massei report is used extensively in this article, and is also used on the talk page frequently to say that a secondary source is wrong (meaning if there is a conflict between a secondary source and the Massei report, the editors on this page have blocked the introduction of the secondary source - see last archive for examples). Regardless, this source [18] doesn't use the term LCN, but clearly says that the DNA testing was seriously flawed because there wasn't nearly enough DNA. This source [19] says that the amount of DNA was tiny and is, therefore, a problem. This petition [20] signed by DNA experts says that the DNA was of an extremely low level. We don't have to use the term LCN (even though by WP policy we are justified in doing so), but the criticism of the process regarding the DNA should be made clear and be more accurate.LedRush (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The first two articles do not say what you say they say. Specifically, you say the articles say "the DNA testing was seriously flawed because there wasn't nearly enough DNA." However, both articles make it clear they are reporting on either an open letter by "nine US specialists in DNA forensics," and "According to Hampikian" You can't take one side of a dispute and word it as fact - there is a dispute over the DNA, so Wikipedia must present both sides neutrally. Please review WP:NPOV. Please don't link to obviously unreliable sources again, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, this is in the context of what the DNA experts said, not reported as fact. If I implied otherwise, I am sorry.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The information that scientists have questioned some of the DNA evidence is already in the article (although, slightly scandalously, the fact that those scientist work with the Knox defence team [21][22] is omitted). You may think it is additionally important to use the term LCN in the article, which is fine if you can find secondary sources that use that term. --FormerIP (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As has been proven to you in the past, they do not work for the Knox defense team. Some, but not all, of the scientists who have been vocal critics of the DNA evidence are associated with the innocence project, which is an independent organization dedicated to free wrongly convicted people through DNA evidence. Your attempts to stir up scandal where there is none is the only "scandal" here.LedRush (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says: "[Dr Hampikian] is currently working with the family of Amanda Knox, the American student jailed in Italy...". I don't think it's unreasonable to query why his view in another publication which doesn't mention the link should be presented as if it is independent. Anyway, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that I will not achieve an article with no pro-Knox bias. Do you have any secondary sources on the question of LCN or are we done? --FormerIP (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've provided the sources above regarding the characterization of the DNA evidence, and have conformed the article to the sources.LedRush (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How have you proven the 9 experts and Hampikian are unpaid? Not that I have an opinion, but please provide sources. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You are nitpicking FormerIP. It is true that Greg Hampikian is a now consultant to the Knox defense and Elizabeth Johnson became involved on a pro bono basis after she was contacted by a Knox supporter. The other people who signed the letter have no connection to the case, although they do represent prestigious organizations. If you wish to suggest that those other scientists work with the defense on some regular basis you are obliged to provide a source. Further, this group of experts refer to the "low copy DNA electropherogram" obtained for the knife. A copy of the e-gram is included in their petition. If you have a credible source that suggests that we are not dealing with LCN here pray produce it. PietroLegno (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that Elizabeth Johnson also worked for the Knoxes. Thanks, that's a good lead. --FormerIP (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can see the archives for the last discussion, but I'm not suggesting that the info go into the article, so I'm not going to track down the sources again.LedRush (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Forensic section of this article is incredibly biased against the defendents. It is basically a summary of the prosecutions points without equal time to the defense. People who come to this article for understaning may actually wonder why there is a controversy when there is so much unanswered convicting evidence against them. The language used is also not NPOV. The defense points have been puposefully not allowed before but hopefully it is time to correct this. Below are parts that need to have the defense response added: 1. Her body had been disrobed and moved some time after death, no material from which contamination could have come. 2. Luminol revealed footprints made in blood in the flat, compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito. 3. Knox's fingerprints were not found in Kercher's bedroom, nor her own bedroom. 4. Investigators concluded that an apparent break-in at the flat had been staged, partly because the window seemed to have been broken after the room had been ransacked.Issymo (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is very difficult to find the appeals on the web, however the only translations of them are machine translations. I have human translations of a few sections and have posted both the Italian and Google translated versions on my docstoc page: http://www.docstoc.com/profile/rosemontague . I was the first to post several of these documents including the appeals currently under consideration on Raffaele, Amanda, and Mignini/Comodi (asking for longer jail time). Amanda's appeal covers the negative quantification and Low Copy Number primarily in sections 5.1 and 5.2 but it is discussed throughout the appeals. Rather than giving you a long quote you can read them yourself but here is just a short one covering the procedures Stefanoni did not follow as it relates to LCN DNA: "In particular, the protocols cited recommend the following precautions for the correct interpretation of genetic profiles of small quantities of genetic material:

- Amplification of extracts in these cases must be conducted at least duplicate; - A particular allele in the genetic profile should be given final only if identified in at least two different experiments; - The concentration of the sample is not recommended; - The minimum height for the interpretation of an allele is 50 RFU. None of the information given was respected by geneticist Police Scientific."RoseMontague (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide links to reliable sources that report whatever information you are currently going on about. Your own person docstoc page is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You asked for some quotes and links earlier? I don't see how my docstoc page is different from the translated Massei report as provided on PMF that you indicated you had just referred to. I could not begin to tell you if others that have posted the appeals got theirs from mine or not as again, mine was the first posted so I don't know how much looking around folks have done for it. Frankly some of the sources you are wanting to use quotes from have not done much research on this because it has not been human translated. Are Italian language news sources acceptable?RoseMontague (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your personal docstoc page is not a reliable source. Italian news articles are. Please provide reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop asking for sources that have already been provided. He is quoting a passage from the scientists' letter, which I've linked to above.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Only Italian new articles are reliable? How interesting.Rose is just providing a translation of Raffaele's appeal. She is right it is not in any sense different than the translation of the Massei report. What are we supposed to do? Use an unreadable Google translation? Be sensible.PietroLegno (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarity. This letter [23] as reported in this source [24] should be used as a basis for extensive criticism of scientific evidence in the trial. But the fact that at least one [25] or possibly both [26] of the authors of the letter are working on the Knox campaign should not be mentioned. Does this not ring NPOV alarm bells with anyone? --FormerIP (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV alarm I hear is in your mischaracterization of the forensic specialists' roles.LedRush (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If individuals who take positions in our article are paid advocates of one side or the other that should be made clear. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that anyone is a paid advocate of anyone else. It's time for you to find some sources. If you've already provided the links, could you please show me where?LedRush (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your are misconstruing things as per usual Former IP. LedRush is exactly right. Elizabeth Johnson was recommended to the Knox and Mellas families and agreed to look at the DNA evidence in a pro bono capacity. No one--least of all Ms. Johnson--has ever attempted to conceal that fact. She found the DNA work "appalling" (yes I have a reliable source for those words) and shared the information with a number of experts representing some of the most respected labs we have in this country (CellMark for example). Hampikian was among those she shared information with and he ultimately agreed to became a formal consultant to the Knox defense. There is nothing remotely sinister or underhanded in this as you seem to imply. What don't you understand? PietroLegno (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"[Dr Hampikian] is currently working with the family of Amanda Knox, the American student jailed in Italy..."; "Elizabeth Johnson became involved on a pro bono basis after she was contacted by a Knox supporter". What am I supposed to be misrepresenting? I have no idea whether either of them are paid by the Knoxes, but that's neither here nor there. --FormerIP (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, seeing as Hipocrite misunderstood your position to be saying that they are paid, I don't think it's too much to think a reader will. If you'd like to say that those people are working with the Knox's though the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to overturning wrongful convictions through DNA evidence, somewhere else, that's fine. However, do we know that all 9 signatories work for the Innocence Project?LedRush (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this source [27], the letter was commissioned by the Friends of Amanda Campaign. It doesn't say if it was paid work, but it does say that some of the work done for the campaign is paid. Does no-one think any sort of clarification in our article would be appropriate? --FormerIP (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point to the specific quote: I'm just not seeing anything in there that says they were commissioned to do anything, and I son't see anything that even implies that they were paid. I did see someplace in the beginning where 10 scientists volunteered, but I don't even know that those are the same people who signed the letter. Also, it explicitly says that one of the experts was "an independent DNA expert".LedRush (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote is: "Elizabeth Johnson, an independent DNA expert in California, analyzed the report after being given a copy by Heavey, and came away appalled". That's Mike Heavey of the Friends of Amanda campaign. Johnson is a private forensic consultant [28], so she normally gives reports to people who pay her. She may have worked pro-bono, but the article refers to experts who "offered assistance for free or below cost", so she may also have been paid. It's irrelevant really, because the prestige of a big murder case is enough.

I can't appeal to anyone's sense of shame? --FormerIP (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing shameful here. I honestly can't comprehend what you think is unseemly here. Also, every time you've described the relationship, you've implied it is more insidious than any source reports. I just don't get it. I find it more of a conflict that the police get promotions for getting confessions, or that prosecutors get paid to people people in jail and are rated on their conviction rate. I expect people affiliated with a non-profit which tries to free wrongly convicted people based on DNA evidence to be coming to conclusions that are helpful to the defense: it their research didn't help the defendant, the non-profit would be focusing their time elsewhere.LedRush (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't have any information linking Johnson to anything non-profit. She's a private forensic consultant [29]. She wrote a letter criticising the Italian forensic results but she didn't do it independently, she was asked to by the Friends of Amanda Knox campaign. If I closed my eyes real tight and imagine what it would be like to be a neutral editor, I'm guessing that I might find the connection worth mentioning in the article. If I wasn't neutral, I might try to get away with fudging it so it's not very clear to the reader. But I don't think there's a scenario where I wouldn't mention it at all. --FormerIP (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know what you think is bad about this, or what you'd think to say. You make all these assumptions about one (or two) signatories to a letter. We have no evidence that she was paid by the Knox team. Also, I don't appreciate your repeated attacks, especially seeing as you are the one who has continually misrepresented secondary sources to fit your POV. How about this: you try and actually discuss what the sources say, and I will do the same.LedRush (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my butting in :) But maybe a neutral new person's perspective could be helpful here. I would think that it's standard to disclose relationships between quoted sources and the people or situations they're commenting on. Everyone knows that prosecutors get paid to try to get people convicted, so Wikipedia doesn't need to point that fact out, right? But if a quote about the case is made by someone who was hired or at least engaged by an advocacy group, why wouldn't you disclose that fact? Not because it's "sinister" or "insidious," just because it's relevant information.If this person is actually affiliated with the Innocence Project, disclose that fact; if she's actually in private practice and was engaged by a friend of the Knox family, why not disclose that fact, since as you say there's nothing sinister about the relationship anyway? Grebe39 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

At the time the letter was written, Johnson was not in the employ at all of the Knox-Mellas family. She agreed to look at the DNA evidence pro bono and call it as she saw it. She did not agree to try to present her analysis in a way that was favorable to Knox. The purpose of her work was to let the family know whether the DNA work was solid or whether it would be profitable to contest it. We have every reason to believe that had the DNA evidence appeared reliable to her she would have said so. She shared her information with a number of other highly qualified DNA experts--representing some of the most reputable labs in the U.S.--and they concurred with her assessment that the work was appalling. The letter was the product. None of the signatories--literally not one of them--was in any sense beholden to, or in the pay of, the Knox/Family family when the letter was written. It was their disinterested professional opinion pure and simple. In fact, having performed her neutral, pro bono, service Elizabeth Johnson appears to have quietly gone back to her own work. Greg Hampikian ultimately did become a consultant to the family and it is eminently fair to note that fact. The grave misrepresentation here is to suggest that Elizabeth Johnson's opinion was in any way for sale. PietroLegno (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Arrest of Guede

This section doesn't mention how the police connected Guede with the crime. Can we at least give our readers a clue? --Footwarrior (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be far more than a clue. He's the one person who sides can agree was involved in the murder, and he should get more detailed coverage than he currently does. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the key phrase in his prior arrests is the term "booked" (or "booking") as used in source ""School Owner Testifies in Knox Trial That Convicted Killer Stole" (ABC News, 27 June 2009). It might be difficult to match any source to the phrases "charged with breaking and entering" or "charged with theft" or "charged with concealing a deadly weapon" whereas sources use the word "booked" (or "booking") before he was released from police custody in Milan on October 27, 2007. It is my understanding that his fingerprints and hand-prints were also on file due to investigation of his identity some years earlier? Also, the article needs to add a few more words to explain why a man convicted of both sexual assault and murder gets a sentence reduction from 30 years to only 16 years. Many readers have asked about that in other discussions, so there needs to be answer which seems very objective in the wording. However, I am not requesting that the same person edit the article to make both additions, nor add the text during the same day. -Wikid77 17:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Guede was connected to the case through a finger print they had on file. Once they had him in focus they were able to establish that his DNA and hand and shoe prints were there as well. These details are available and can be checked. The bigger question is how much to get into Guede. I believe we have to do a fair amount because part of the defense is that the theory that Guede acted alone is far more plausible than the theory that three people committed the murder. Steve Moore finds it utterly incomprehensible that anyone would think anyone other than Guede was involved. I would say that, at a minimum, we need to discuss the following about Guede: 1) How he was identified and arrested; 2) the nature of the evidence against him; 3) his record of arrests in the 30 or so days before the murder; 4) the rather astonishing similarities between his previous break-ins and the break-in here; 4) his conflicting stories and testimony; and 5) his sentence and sentence reduction. There are sources that are reliable for all of this, so it is just a question of agreeing on scope. PietroLegno (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudy was an immigrant and all immigrants are required to register at the local police station (Questura) and provide photo and fingerprints. My understanding is that he was picked up several times but never charged with burglary and his motivations report states that he did not have a criminal record. It is strange that even the Massei report contains references to his past break ins as if they were proven crimes.74.236.137.78 (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here, but since no one else has pointed this out, I will. It's not true that all sides agree that Rudy Guede was involved in the murder; Rudy Guede has never admitted this. He has admitted being at the scene but not being involved in the murder.Grebe39 (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Guede being matched to the bloody handprint on the victim's pillow. --Footwarrior (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

civil or criminal?

According to several news sources, Knox' parents are being "sued" by the police for libel. Indeed, libel generally falls under the civil category. However, other news sources are saying that they have been "indicted." Normally, this term is not used in civil cases. So I'm a little confused: are her parents facing civil or criminal charges? Or does the Italian court system make no distinction between the two? --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This question was answered weeks ago (but I could not find it when searching the talk-page archives), as being a particular form of criminal slander (named by a single Italian word) rather than printed "libel" and punishable with up to 3 years in prison. I found a WSJ.com article reporting as slander during the 2008 interview: "Italian Judge Indicts Amanda Knox's Parents - WSJ.com" according to ANSA. To find reports in other WP:Reliable sources, hunt in search-engines for: Perugia parents face "three years". If we find the Italian word, then that could be stated in the article as a more definitive charge. -Wikid77 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the word I have seen used is calumnia and I read the meaning in this context as accusing someone of a crime that you know is innocent.RoseMontague (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Knox's appeal jurors are ALLOWED to read this article

I read something I never knew at Time - apparently the "citizen judges" who will decide the Knox appeal are allowed, even encouraged to read news articles about the case. Since Wikipedia offers (or should offer) an especially comprehensive coverage of the case, this means that the arguments here may contribute directly to the final verdict. This makes it clearer why this article is heating up, and will continue to do so; and the same might be true of other Italian court cases such as the Berlesconi allegations.

While Wikipedia cannot and should not be a courtroom, this should emphasize to all participants the importance of putting aside factional differences and working together to seriously record all the facts and opinions available, to the smallest detail, responsibly, without distorting anything or covering anything up. Wikipedia should aim for articles useful for all kinds of readers, not just dilettantes but legal scholars and citizen activists and, in this case, jurors! Wnt (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

V::::For what it is worth, an Italian friend tells me the Italian version is even worse is terms of pro-guilt bias than this one is. Also, a former editor and administrator here were openly discussing the need to keep the slanted version they created here in order to preserve its propaganda (my word) value during the appeal. Having said this, I do not worry about it much. The jury is comprised of two professional judges and six citizen judges. Under the rules, the citizen judges could in theory outvote the trial judge and his assistant. In practice, this is very unlikely. The verdict when it comes will be what the trial judge and his assistant think is proper. I sincerely doubt that after having read all of the appeals and reports and listened to all the testimony that they will be swayed by Wikipedia. PietroLegno (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The jurors are allowed to read the news, discuss the case and listen to opinions of others outside the courtroom. However, by Italian law, the jury must document its reasoning for arriving at whatever verdict it chooses. Hence we have the Massei Report. If any of the 'hearsay' influences their reasoning - which will appear in the report - this will be a strong point for appeal and overturning the verdict. So we need not worry too much about the Italian jury - they have their system, it works for them and I dont think wiki will sway them one way or another. They get the facts first hand in court. (Giselle 08:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

If the jury read a Wiki article on the case it would more likely be the Italian version, which I am told is a mess btw Issymo (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Kercher DNA 2

I wanted to comment on the Kercher DNA question but it now says that the section does not exist? I had posted an article earlier that contained this quote regarding LCN DNA: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10408000 "British analysts were puzzled when the new technique turned up the same DNA profile from samples taken from the scenes of three very different types of crimes. The prospect of it being the DNA fingerprint of a most versatile criminal was extinguished when it proved to be the DNA of an employee of the German manufacturer of a piece of equipment used by the scientists." Machine or equipment contamination is a definite possibility when dealing with LCN DNA. The same machine used to test the "alleged" DNA on the knife was used to test many other samples containing Kercher's DNA. The appeals cover it this way: Track B allegedly found on the blade of the find proved 36 <<tooLow>> (low - too low) and also turned out not to be blood."

"The literal meaning of the reported about the track B is not leaves room for doubt on the basis of information provided by machinery used for quantification at trace B of finding 36 there was no DNA or other DNA found was not sufficient for a subsequent amplification."

"R - I think that should stop the investigation, analysis ....Because if quantity is too low in this still could be microliter zero, too low means that below 10 picograms could DNA also does not exist>> (September 14, 2009 hearing transcript, p.. 46)."

My reading of the appeals show that they refer to this as the "alleged discovery profile of Meredith Kercher on the blade of the knife". I do not believe that the defense has conceded at what point contamination occurred. The material taken from the knife could have contained no DNA whatsoever and after cranking the volume up 9 times the reading could have been from just a few picograms of DNA that got on the sample in the handling of the sample or in the equipment used with the sample that had also been used on previous samples. RoseMontague (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Edit away.LedRush (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Article could explain contamination scenarios: The way I was thinking, the contamination could be explained in the following manner. The lab analysts start with a tiny sample (4 cells?) from the knife, as "sample" then with all-things-Kercher in the lab, there might be, somewhere, other Kercher DNA as the "CONTAMINATION". Hence, when the two are combined, as mixed in with the tiny sample, then the total result becomes: "CONTAMINATION+sample". Consequently, the combined amount would show in tests to be mainly a sample of Contamination, mainly the Kercher DNA. Some questions to answer are: Was the knife tested in the same lab as other Kercher property, or in a totally separate lab, far away? Does the test of, perhaps 4 cells, have a way of measuring the potential count of cells which cause RFU peaks (RFU is relative fluoresence units), such as, "Hey, these are peaks from 20 cells, not 4? Is the level of contamination "unprovable" at such low levels, in other words, do scientists conclude there is no way to exclude contamination? Is it like trying to prove which child in a classroom full of sniffling kids spread a cold to a particular child? If that information is known, then the article text can be updated with those issues in mind. -Wikid77 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the article would list a whole slew of scenarios which could have led to contamination. We have the Massei report for the prosecutions opinion, and the American DNA experts for another view. That should be enough.LedRush (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The American DNA experts linked to the Free Amanda campaign, do you mean? --FormerIP (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have apoint by making this claim over and over? Of course any scientists who made such a statement would later decide to support Knox's family: because based upon their scientific conclusions they believe a great miscarriage of justice happened. If they cared enough to make that statement in the first place they would then support the family. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this source would be considered reliable, at least as an indicator that the DNA evidence was considered controversial: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427373.600-knox-murder-trial-evidence-flawed-say-dna-experts-.html New Scientist is one of the most respected magazines in the world and would not publish an article like this if the editors were not convinced that the arguments in it had some merit and were from reliable sources. I read the full article at the time on paper. To access it online a subscription is required but I believe that Mr Wales may be able to arrange this. NigelPScott (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. I believe the term Low Copy Number DNA should be referenced here. As in: "The defense is claiming that the alleged DNA on the knife blade attributed to Kercher is Low Copy Number and as proper testing procedures were not followed that result could be due to contamination." Then a link to the AK appeal part I quoted earlier discussing the procedures that were not followed. Link to the Italian as I see the Massei report linked that way in the article listing the page number of the following quote: "In particular, the protocols cited recommend the following precautions for the correct interpretation of genetic profiles of small quantities of genetic material:

Amplification of extracts in these cases must be conducted at least

duplicate;

A particular allele in the genetic profile should be given final

only if identified in at least two different experiments;

The concentration of the sample is not recommended;

The minimum height for the interpretation of an allele is 50 RFU.

None of the information given was respected by geneticist Police

Scientific."RoseMontague (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely vital to have secondary sources to cite for any discussions of contamination. Disputes between experts are the sort of thing we can't use even good primary sources to settle on our own. Wnt (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We definitely need a little more explanation of the DNA controversy. The tiny little sentence in there about the group of scientific experts finding flaws is confusing to the average reader, and it not being expanded in any detail gives the impression that it's a very minor controversy. Experts from around the world have said similar things. To turn FormerIP's argument around, the only people making claims about the DNA being conclusive are linked to the prosecution, and the lead investigator of the case has had her credentials questioned. We can't have balance by having the bulk of the article represent only prosecution claims. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If other groups contest the DNA evidence, let's explain that and cite to them. If they are paid by Knox, of course, that will need to be clearly indicated.LedRush (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out a distinction that I think is important in regards to the above statement by LedRush. It would not be on the merits of payment that the results would be credible, whether or not anyone received any payment. If any expert skewed their results for payment, that would be a violation of ethics. None have intended to breach their careers to investigate the testing. Results are results and any compromising circumstances would be the exception to valid work. Is there any reason to have suspicion toward them? Those are heavy implications that seem unmerited and baseless. On the other hand, since the results challenge the results of the prosecution, perhaps the results cast a question in that direction. It is why independent testing and the perspective of independent experts are so important (and transparency of their scientific process). A party seeking an independent review does not take the experts out of the category of being independent. The distinction I wanted to make is between objective, valid results and any kind of payment. (I don't know if anyone was actually paid for investigating.) The article should not try to blur or obscure that distinction, since that would be NPOV. Perk10 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Cited order of protagonists

Rudy Guede was found to be the lesser of the three protagonists. But he is cited first throughout the article. Why is this? The primary protagonist -- found to have inflicted the major, fatal wound onto Meredith Kercher is Amanda Knox. 217.35.229.93 (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the only reason for this sequence is that Guede's conviction came first due to him electing a fast track trial. Therefore I think it should/should stay as is in the body but am not opposed to a change within the lead, starting with Knox/Solecito and then Guede.TMCk (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting Knox first all the time would be a nice compromise gesture in relation to the question of whether she should get her own article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction to my previous post: The "People charged with the murder" section should be rearranged starting with Knox and ending with Guede.And FormerIP, that remark was nasty.TMCk (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But she's the most important figure in the story, surely? You wouldn't put Ringo first in a list of Beatles, after all... --FormerIP (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say your conclusion is wrong.TMCk (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, the current order broadly reflects the timeline of events; on the other, I agree with the IP editor on the question of prominence. It would be difficult to argue against the assertion that of the three imprisoned, Knox has the greatest coverage - quite a strong argument in favour of a separate biography for her, but that's another story. Super Mario Man 22:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the order in which arrests were made or charges were filed. I think Knox deserves her own article, but this isn't a matter of "prominence", but simply finding space to elaborate all the facts. That article, as previewed in the User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox draft, is the appropriate place for information about the civil suits over book rights, the criminal libel charges against the parents, and such things. This article should explain the investigation of the murder step by step, with as few flashbacks and foreshadowings as possible. Wnt (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the order in which arrests were made or charges were filed. That would be in the order Knox, Sollecito, (Lumumba), Guede. --FormerIP (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right! Which suggests that the phrase in the article describing Lumumba as "the man originally accused of murdering Kercher" should be altered, by the way. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No that's not right. He was the first person to be accused of the murder. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's something we should get clear: date and time of arrest and of charging, for everyone arrested or charged. Just one of those basic details that clears up how the police went about things. Wnt (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Found to be the lesser"? By whom? In the report attached to Knox's conviction, Guede is deemed to be the instigator of the crime. Knox is deemed to have spontaneously decided to help Guede commit the murder, rather than, at that time (as one might expect), come to the aid of her roommate. According to the report, her actions were done without malice to the victim.67.21.194.157 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And of course the report is the opinion of the guilty side, the innocent side disputes all of that as well. Both sides make Guede the prime (or only) killer. DreamGuy (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The comments by 217.35.229.93 and FormerIP show a pretty twisted understanding of both the facts and WP:NPOV policy. Claiming Knox as most important to the case and suggesting she get even more text suggesting she was the primary killer when it is highly disputed that she killed anyone at all is absurd. Guede was both the first to go trial, the first convicted, the one with the strongest evidence against him, and also the one the least controversy surrounds in his verdict. DreamGuy (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Twisted, eh? --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What is this trying to say?

Civil lawsuit filed by Kercher's family

Kercher's family filed a civil suit against anyone found guilty of the murder. The court awarded a sum of €1,000,000 to each of the parents and €800,000 to each of Kercher's siblings.

Were there two separate court cases (1) the family suit, and (2) the murder case? It's not clear. Moriori (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The cases were combined, as apparently is common in Italian law. http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-civil-trial/story?id=9191557&page=1 Grebe39 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Support for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

This section currently only lists the Knox Family and Maria Cantwell. The family almost doesn't count because they are the family after all and should be removed. Maria Cantwell's portion deserves a few lines but in my opinion is too long. What is completely missing is the support sites that have developed of people working against what they see as a wrongful conviction. I think this area should include the support sites 'Friends of Amanda Knox', 'Injustice in Perugia' and 'raffaelesollecito.org'. It should also list notable individual supporters like FBI agent Steve Moore, Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry, FBI profiler John Douglas, Innocence project's Dr. Greg Hampikian, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, Dr David Anderson, author Douglas Preston, anchor Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump. I probably missed some.Issymo (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I would limit it to about 20 entries (based on the idea of a bar chart limited to 20 bars for the average attention span. However, if that limit seems excessive, then perhaps divide the list into some groups of related professions, or such. -Wikid77 07:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
To keep things sane, you should probably only mention the supporter organizations that have gained coverage in some unaffiliated source, and cite those sources. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag moved to /NPOV

I have rescued the archived topic "NPOV tag" and placed it into new subpage "/NPOV". As happened several times last year, someone lowered this talk-page's auto-archive limit to just 3 days, and Miszabot removed the section "NPOV tag" which was to remain as a long-term WP:NPOV dispute. The full talk-subpage is:

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/NPOV#NPOV tag

Using subpages of a talk-page can avoid the auto-archiving of topics, typically triggered when no one has responded in several days, such as often happens in a long-term discussion of WP:NPOV issues. -Wikid77 07:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudy sentencing/Number of years

The article states Rudy "was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher and received a reduced sentence of 16 years after an appeal. Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student who shared a flat with Kercher, were convicted of sexual assault and murder. Sollecito was sentenced to 25 years in prison, and Knox was sentenced to 26 years." This is misleading for several reasons. In the first trial Rudy received a 30 year sentence (as quoted in the Micheli Motivation report). Because he elected the "Fast Track" trial he gets an automatic one-third reduction in time served (from 30 to 20). At his appeal (as quoted in the Borsini Motivation report) his overall sentence was reduced from 30 to 24 years, the 6 year reduction due to mitigating factors as listed in the Borsini Motivation (rough childhood and no criminal record). The 16 years he will actually serve is due to again the automatic one-third reduction for electing the Fast Track trial (24 years reduced by one-third to 16 years). In reality, Rudy got the same mitigating factors in his first appeal that Amanda and Raffaele got in the regular (first) trial. The maximum of 30 years was reduced to 24 (for the main charge) due to mitigating factors. The additional one or two years is due to the other charges against Raffaele and Amanda and not the main murder charge. (IIRC Amanda and Raffaele got a burglary conviction and Raffaele did not-I know that sounds crazy-and Amanda had some other charges as well). Mignini is appealing this reduction that Amanda and Raffaele got in the first trial.RoseMontague (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I know, everything you said is accurate. I don't think the current text is bad, but if you have secondary sources and don't overkill the article with details, add it in.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not sourced now and at the present time there is only one primary source for the Borsini Motivation and no secondary. I think it should be edited to read sentenced to 30 years and reduced to 24 years at first appeal and will serve only 16 years due to the nature of the Fast Track trial that he elected giving him an automatic one-third reduction. I am not going to do any edits here on this article because my view is not neutral, that is just a personal decision. RoseMontague (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to add anything in without a source, even if it is unsourced now. If you present text here exactly as you want it in the article (including sources), I will copy and paste into the article, making any changes I feel are necessary to comply with WP policy.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Frank Sfarzo is a source for this. I would argue that he is a reliable source so long as he is reporting what happened and why. He was the only journalist who was in court every day and on a number of occasions he has provided accurate information that was available nowhere else.PietroLegno (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the two sources, the first covers the original 30 years, the second has it reduced to 24 and mentions the 16 after the one-third fast track reduction. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/28/meredith-kercher-guede-knox-sollecito http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder RoseMontague (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Revesed blanking of whole sections of article

(this section is linked as "Revesed" rather than "Reversed") I have initiated a WP:BRD cycle by bolding re-adding all changes that I made yesterday, including restoring 2 entire sections totally blanked by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (in this edit). In general, users should note the following:

WP:Blanking sections violates many policies

A user who blanks entire sections of an article and then demands consensus to have them re-added is typical of the massive gutting of this article which occurred during the past months. There is no policy which requires anyone to get consensus before adding sections to an article, and deleting the sections to demand consensus before updating an article can be viewed as a violating many policies. At this point, with the formal initiation of a WP:BRD cycle, then consensus is needed to again delete those whole sections of the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Tarc ignored the WP:BRD cycle, within 6 minutes, and blanked those sections and removed over 48 other changes (made by 2 users) in this edit. -Wikid77 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You yourself didn't have consensus to re-add that bloat in the first place, so, sorry, but no. There is obviously a huge debate here on the merits of restoring forensics material and other from that older, larger version. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, what policy do you think requires a user to gain consensus before adding a new section to the article? -Wikid77 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, if an addition is reverted, it should be discussed (and obtain consensus) before readding. If TMCK doesn't think the added material fits, I think its on you to get consensus to add it.LedRush (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the default does not have to be deletion of text. And the above reverts removed, not just those 2 new sections, but over 49 other changes to the article, including an edit by another user who changed the title of one section. Please read the essay above. All of my 50 changes were removed entirely. However, it is good to identify, now, all the editors who will not allow expansion of this article. Other editors need to beware the extreme extent to which this article has been gutted, and the extent to which deleting hundreds of words of text continues. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand. If they just removed new sections (meaning they weren't in there already), I stand by my above statements. If they removed those sections, plus a whole bunch of other stuff, the removal should be reverted and they should be more precise with their reversions.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there were over 50 changes made to the text, and rather than edit the article to delete just the 2 whole sections (without consensus to delete), they completely reverted all changes made by 2 editors; click the following link to see the diff-text of all 50 changes which were removed: "show all 50 changes removed". I agree that the editors need to undo their deletions and discuss which of those 50 changes they feel needs to be removed. -Wikid77 15:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should be hosting a timeline cited to a photocopy of a primary court document in Italian. What is this alleged timeline as asserted by who? http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20100318/knox_opinion.pdf - Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind reverting new sections, but reverting everything else in the process seems disruptive and obstructionist. Each of the new sections should be discussed (separately) here, and if there are problems with the minor edits (like taking out the first names from the heading), let's discuss them separately as well.LedRush (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

However, it is good to identify, now, all the editors who will not allow expansion of this article. Other editors need to beware the extreme extent to which this article has been gutted, and the extent to which deleting hundreds of words of text continues.

The end of the first sentence should read "excessive and inordinate expansion of this article". With respect, Wikid, part of your attempt to "expand" the article seems to go against the purpose of the lead section - the introduction of an article serves to give a general summary of the content, not to go into specifics such as the number of euros stolen. Detailed forensics and timelines have been debated in the past and removed as going into excessive detail. You have been told this repeatedly in the past. Since the dissertation cited is one that you yourself made in June 2010, I fail to see much of an argument for reintegration of much of the text past self-citation of opinion. I would suggest that you re-read WP:BRD to gain a better understanding of the concept. Super Mario Man 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It see no reason to accept a blanket claim that there is prior consensus for every reduction from the 150 kb version - who can go through all those edits and tell what was agreed and what just happened and was gotten away with? And when so many dubious blocks have been made, how much is consensus worth? Best just to look at the text.

I think that the detailed timeline looks good to stay right now - it should actually be expanded. Lots of articles have timelines with far less justification than an article about a real life murder mystery.

The stuff about the searches and the apartment that is currently being contested look like they should be reworked with a better plan. It seems unorganized, with too few inline citations, and despite all its detail it still isn't enough detail to really understand the significance of it. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Jimbo had to step in to stop the stranglehold of POV pushing on this article, it's fair to assume any supposed prior consensus to remove content in the earlier article is no longer valid. Consensus is not permanent anyway, and, considering the very poor decisions made by the previous editors, saying they all agreed something doesn't belong is probably a stronger vote for putting it back. Not that I support all the old stuff either, but some of these arguments being made are clearly in bad faith. DreamGuy (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Request For Edit - Events surrounding the murder

I thought I would try to shorten the section "Events surrounding the murder" in response to Hipocrite's concerns about bloat. I was able to cut out about 100 words, but then I put in a few additional lines. I think all of the information is very relevant to understanding the crime and Knox's known behaviors preceding discovery of the body. Here is my proposed rewrite of the section material:

Kercher’s flat was empty in the early evening hours of November 1, 2007. One Italian flatmate would stay at her boyfriends, and the other was out of town. So also were the four young men who lived downstairs.[21]:41 Knox expected to work at Le Chic pub that night. At 8:18 pm her boss, Patrick Lumumba, sent her a message that business was slow and she wasn’t needed. Knox texted in reply "Okay see you later good evening!" in Italian. Knox answered the door at Sollecito's flat when a friend stoped by at 8:45 pm.[21]:47-48

Kercher was at the home of friend. She arrived around 4pm.[A1] She shared a pizza with three young English women, all friends. [A1]The meal could have started as early as 5:30pm to as late as 6:30pm. [A1,B]The friends watched a movie and eat an apple crumble.[A2] Kercher said she was tired and wanted an early night. One of Meredith’s friends walked her almost home, parting company at about 8:55 pm.[21]:48-49 The last 500 yards (460 m) Kercher walked alone.[22]

Before 10:30pm a car broke down along the road in front of the flat. The driver called for a tow, and the car was removed at around 11:15pm. The driver and truck operator reported the flat was dark and still.[C]49 A woman who lived nearby later said she heard a "chilling scream" that night, followed by running footsteps.[23]

At 2:30am Rudy Guede was in the Domus Disco, dancing.[C]50

The next day, at 12:07 pm Knox called one of Kercher's two mobile phones. At 12:08 Knox called Filomena R, the Italian flatmate responsible for the lease. Knox had returned to the flat, she said, and found the front door open and blood in a bathroom. Knox then called Kercher's second mobile phone and also tried the first phone again. Ms R called Knox three times. The final call was at 12:34pm. Knox tells Ms R the window in her room has been broken and the room is a mess. At 12:47 pm, Knox called her mother in Seattle who tells her to call the police. Sollecito made two calls, at 12:51 and 12:54 pm, to the Italian emergency number 112 to summon the Carabinieri. He reported a break in, blood, a locked door and a missing roommate. During this call Knox can be heard giving the address for the flat.[21]:57-61 Before the arrival of the Carabinieri, two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police came. They were investigating the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones in a nearby garden.[25]

Knox showed the two officers the room with the broken window, the locked door and the blood in the bathroom. Ms R arrived with three friends. The Carabinieri had yet to arrive, and the Post and Communications Police werereluctant to break down Meredith’s locked door. Around 1:15 pm one of the friends kicked it open. Kercher was found lying on the floor covered by a duvet soaked in blood. The officers ordered everyone out.[21]:62-65

Added sources: A) The Massei Report:1 Amy Frost Itl p 23, PMF p 37; 2 Sophie Purton Itl p 24, PMF 37. B: Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, etc. C: Dempsey, Candace (2010). Murder in Italy. New York: Berkley Books. Moodstream (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the wider coverage of events from the WP:RS sources, especially if the text was changed to past tense (such as "kicks" to "kicked") to match the verb tense of the other prose in the article. Also, the text above needs to state "Filomena R." rather than the full names of people who are not the case lawyers or police (per policy WP:BLP for naming other people). -Wikid77 (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I wasn't thinking about how it fit in, just how to cut out -ed's and 'was -ing's'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moodstream (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so just edit your suggested text, above, putting past-tense verbs and abbreviating names to "Filomena" or "Filomena R." or "Luca A." (etc.). -Wikid77 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to move most of the witness testimony to the trial section. The lady who heard the scream, the homeless guy, the people in the broken down car and the tow truck driver came forward or were found months later. There is also substantial disagreement on the reliability of some of these witnesses. The car park video of a woman approaching the cottage might be mentioned here. Also the phone events recorded by the victims phone after she left her friends. (An attempt to call her mother, an attempt to connect with her bank that didn't use the required dialing prefix and the receipt of an MMS message). --Footwarrior (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I put it in past tense. I did it sort of quick so it may - well it does anyway - need some work. I was thinking about adding Toto and Quintaville at the bottom, with statements like a few weeks later a homeless man claimed to have seen the pair, and a year later Quint claimed Knox was in his store. But both of these are so controversial, it is hard to squeeze them in without adding a paragraph each about the uncertainty of their testimony. I think you are right about the phone records for Meredith's phone. I wasn't aware there was any controversy about the broken down car, but if there is, that needs to be addressed too, I would think. Moodstream (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

.

Why no mention of Mobile Phones activity?

I remember that Knox and Sollecito mobile phones had both a peculiar activity the night of the murder. Why is this factual piece of information unmentioned throughout the article? --Grifomaniacs (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see above timeline discussion.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to reports that indicate that Knox and Sollecito both switched off their phones at about 9 pm that night.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not important to the case. The jury found the murder unplanned, so the cell phones were not turned off at the same for planned reason. It is a dead issue. Issymo (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That could go in the above timeline, right?LedRush (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. In addition to that I think that Mobile Phones Activity should be regarded apart, in a less broader manner, it is a central issue not second to DNA for importance.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - it makes sense to keep the timeline comprehensive and separate, with all calls listed equally; but the article should also explain the prosecutors' arguments about the cell phones (and rebuttals) from the "top down", focusing on the most important calls (as judged by the secondary sources). Wnt (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the mobile phone issues are in dispute. There is no objective evidence of when phones were turned off or on--just a lot of speculation. All we know for certain is when they were used because even that gets tricky when you get into the details. As I will say many times in this discussion, a lot of this is a sideline and a distraction. The main issues are: Motive, defendants statements, witnesses, and physical evidence. Much of the cell phone discussion is just speculative entertainment. PietroLegno (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful documentary for inclusion in resource/documentary list: Learning Channel documentary "The Trials of Amanda Knox" (not to be confused with Lifetime movie with similar name). NigelPScott (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nowadays, mobile phones are our digital protheses... I think they should be counted as a sort of physical evidence, if you carry them... We have to rely on the analyses by third party technicians involved in the trial... On second instance, on those effectuated by indipendent renowed experts in that field. At that point, removed the buzz and speculations, you may obtain sources for an encyclopedia. I will check the web and the mentioned sources to further verify mobile phones turnoff/on question. Thank you for your answers.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions of the people posting here that the mobile phones are important or peculiar or whatever are not significant. If the issue was important to a trial it would have been mentioned in the reliable sources and can be mentioned in the article in relative proportion, assuming both sides' views are adequately covered. I'm at a bit of a loss at first blush to understand how turning off phones (assuming it can be proved to have happened) is at all peculiar, let alone incriminating, but, again, as an editor here my personal opinion does not matter -- so bring on the reliable sources and the suggested wording to present it in a NPOV way. DreamGuy (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The mobile phones discussion was important as part as the circumstantial evidence in this case. For instance; it shows that the accused were awake when they claim to have been asleep. It was part of the Massei Report and therefore it should be entered into the Wikipedia page whether or not editors agree with its relevance or significance. It is documented evidence - it should be up to readers to infer will they want from this evidence.--GiselleK (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While that sounds reasonable on the face of it, it's not really practical and ends up in most cases violating Wikipedia policies. If you say that anything in the Massei Report is notable and should be in the article, then the article would have to include the entire report. We need to see what outside reliable sources have to say about it and include it or not in proportion to the other coverage. To do otherwise would be cherry picking certain topics based upon the editors' own personal opinions, which is original research/synthesis and tends to be done so that undue weight can be given and slant the article. Certainly, based upon the wording, some of the comments here are trying to justify its inclusion solely based upon whether it supports the opinions they have already formed about the case. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Who do you mean by outside sources?! The whole problem with this case is the controversy, the issue is that the facts, such as cell records - which cannot be disputed - are not freely available. People come to an encyclopaedia for facts and not the media reports. Especially since if we look at what most the media have to say, it will be pro-knox given the massive PR campaign her family launched. How can that be balanced? For the most part everything in the Massei Report - the most reliable source of information - should be included, but in short.--Giselle 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

Less than candid court testimonies

I think it might be helpful to note, as a general issue, that some testimonies by witnesses were considered less than candid, to indicate how many witnesses were believed to have problems in their testimonies, such as in the Guede trial, when friends of Guede would be unable to recall events when they might be considered as aiding a fugitive on the run. Also, witnesses were asked if they had given interviews to the media. I tend to think of this issue as "everyone changed their stories" (well, not actually everyone) during the trials, and at least in the case of Judge Paolo Micheli, he noted that allowances were made for selective memory in cases of potential self-incrimination. The article should not give the impression that all witnesses were completely reliable in their views of events (many were not), where only the suspects were considered to have changed the reported events. I realize that this issue is a higher level of concern, about "selective memory", but I feel it would add depth to the article, and provide a better understanding of all the shifty things the juries heard during various conflicting, or altered, testimonies. For example, someone might have trouble remembering a phone call in which they said, "All these people in this town are such bumbling fascists" (or such). Also, in terms of Patrick L., remember that some witnesses contradicted his view of when he claimed to be in his pub, so his slow release after being arrested can also be connected to his story not matching other witnesses. I'm not sure where the article should discuss this problem, but perhaps a bottom section could be added. -Wikid77 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely. In my opinion, Filomena R.(...) is a very unreliable witness. It is very wrong and very unfair for anyone to put much stock into what she said. She is often contradicted both by the testimony of others and by things like photographic evidence. Also, there were clearly language barriers between her and Amanda. One of the reasons the Dempsey book is valuable is that it provides a good deal of the fine detail that is not available elsewhere. PietroLegno (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on guys, unless you list secondary sources for conclusions like this you're basically just having a forum conversation. Now in the article there is a section "Evidence" which has a section "Forensic Evidence" but not a section "Witness testimony". There should be such a section, and under it there should be a section about "Witness credibility", under which such sources are listed, together with an excerpt of their key conclusions. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just noting from the Micheli Judgment in comments by Dr. Paolo Micheli, but some examples could include a witness saying the streets were wet from rain when the rain occurred on the previous night. However, it does make sense to only list contradictions, or omissions, as noted in secondary sources. -Wikid77

Don't forget that any reported contradictions in evidence must not be original research or synthesis (WP:OR) and instead must be cited to reliable sources and have the side making the claims identified so nobody is confused: So-and-so testified for the prosecution and made whatever statement.<reliable source> Defense lawyers/expert argued that it was unreliable because whatever-reason-they-gave.<another reliable source>. There may also be some notability issues if it goes too in depth, but certainly some coverage of this important aspect is necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

^ February 2011 "Lifetime movie full of mistakes, says CBS News producer". CBS News. Retrieved 17 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
^ "Amanda Knox Movie Flunks Truthiness Test". Seattle Pi. Seattle. 22 February 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2011.

[1] February 2011 "Lifetime movie full of mistakes, says CBS News producer". CBS News. Retrieved 17 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)

[2] "Amanda Knox Movie Flunks Truthiness Test". Seattle Pi. Seattle. 22 February 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2011.

[1]

[2]