Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 38

Trial's Re-jig

Based on discussion on this page and generally positive vibes around the idea I have added a "Trial" section that summarises, briefly, the chronology and outcome of the trials as well as the appeals process. I envision us fleshing this out in the coming days with a little more detail and some fixed prose. I have cut info from the following two main trial sections (Guede and K&S) - note I have tried very hard not to delete information outright. Everything that was there before should still be there - perhaps located elsewhere. With luck I've missed nothing - if I have sorry and please do add it back.

My view is that this gives us a bit of a re-organised framework to rework the trials content around. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Above, I actually meant for you to post here first, and only the first part, so that I could check the paragraphs. Oh well. It will take me a few hours to go through the changes, so I hope that we can concentrate on these sections for the next couple of days. One issue I see already (not a new one, but an older one related to one of my 10 observations above) is that the current text makes it seem like the defense mischaracterized the prosecution's view of the crime as one being related to satanic practice. This should be changed as the prosecution (at least Mignini) publicly stated that as a theory (though he later backed off that position).LedRush (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and great work!LedRush (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry *sheepish grin* I've had a drink (or two) and am pretty sleepy. Never mind, lets see where it goes. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is good work and I encouraged Errant to be bold and add it to the article. :) Now, he just reminded me of something.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just changed the order a bit to (a) get the information regarding appeals up front and (b) get the appeals update immediately after the trial info for each of the defendants. With these changes, as far as I'm concerned, we can cross numbers 1 and 2 off the list.LedRush (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No issues; this really is the ultimate in drafting so I fuly encourage people to massage and fill out the material & prose :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Mignini

Just arbitrarily going down my list, next up is Mignini. How is he best handled? Should we have a paragraph on him introducing him quickly (brief mention of indictment and his denials), some criticism of him (and his responses, if he's made them)? Should we also tie in some of the prosecution theories of the case here as well, or is that better integrated into the K&S trial section? Has anyone been working on this in secret, like Errant was when he fixed the first two issues on the sly?LedRush (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not outright opposed to such a section. However I am still not convinced about his whole unrelated conviction thing.... I know this is a pain but can someone lay out the sourcing for that again so I can see. However; I think the way to work this is to make a section about the prosecution "outside the case" - which will be mainly Mignini, but he does embody the prosecution in this case. I see it going potentially under the K&S trials section as, perhaps, "Prosecution" or even "Prosecution Controversy". --Errant ^(chat!) 11:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Answering the question, "Has anyone been working on this in secret?", I believe you may find some good material from Ravensfire here which would help with a start. Shhh....it's a secret. ;) I'll drop a note letting him know about this thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

An interesting article that talks about Mignini, early prosecution theory, and Knox's interrogations. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/01/amanda.knox.author/
This could be used to source a couple of my POV issues. Also, I didn't know that the so-called confession was ruled inadmissible at trial. We might want to make mention of that as well.LedRush (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The current wording in the article is Since the trial, Mignini has been sentenced to a 16-month suspended jail term for "abuse of office" over phone tapping during a 2001 re-investigation of the Monster of Florence case, which he is appealing against. Knox's defence has suggested that his conviction could be grounds for an appeal, although Mignini has said that it would not affect her conviction.

I'm not sure if this factored into the justification for the appeal being granted or whether this is being presented by the defence during the appeal. If not, it is just tangential. Apart from that, I'm not sure what else would need to be elaborated on concerning the prosecutor. Suggestions? What more is desired concerning Mignini?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As referenced above, criticism of his conduct during this trial and his penchant for satanic theories (including for this case).LedRush (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you working on the proposed wording?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting the motives at the beginning of the prosectuion/defense argument section? Any better ideas for the placement?LedRush (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Libel Judge Recusal

For Knox's family's libel case. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/04/italy.knox.parents/index.html?hpt=hp_p1&iref=NS1 LedRush (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences about this development using an updated edition of the source. SuperMarioMan 11:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent...thank you.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Interpreter present

Knox would also claim that there had been no interpreter present. [...] Knox, herself, would later testify during the trial, "And then there was this interpreter next to me..."

No need to mention her initial claim if she later agreed there was one. Kwenchin (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it goes to the question of whether or not she has changed her story. It is not clear to me that she has (or hasn't) based on what I understand. Her interrogation lasted for a very long time, so it seems likely that she did not have an interpret for part of it, and did have an interpreter for part of it.

At this moment, Wikipedia appears to be engaging in inappropriate original research or synthesis, because we juxtapose the two claims without explanation, clearly suggesting to the reader that she lied or changed her story.

What do reliable sources say?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some research on this one - nothing is particularly clear and no source has a good overview of the whole of this issue as it stands the information about the contradiction is synth. We could probably state it as fact rather than "Knox later said..." but even then it is a bit problematic. Nowhere is it recorded Knox's specific claims about not having an interpretor present so it is not clear if she was claiming for the whole time. However; the matter will be in court in November under civil proceedings, so we will probably be able to iron it out then. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The interpreter was someone who spoke English but was acting as an interrogator not an interpreter, i.e. she suggested to Knox that she had repressed memories about the night of the crime. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we remedy the contradiction? They are about the same time period of the interview because her quote is about a statement (from what she calls an interpreter) shortly before she claims that she was hit on the head. She had an interpreter there when she implicated Lumumba ref.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

She probably had an interpreter from the point on when she turned to be a suspect but we need a source for this and I don't believe there is or will be one till the defamation lawsuit goes to court. Dead end so to say. TMCk (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The interpreter took a role incompatible with that of an interpreter so it's valid to say that person was not an interpreter or alternatively that they were. You might characterise the person as 'the interpreter' just to be able to identify them in a future discussion, which appears to be what Amanda did. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's even further down the path of OR :) why don't we wait for it to be resolved without having to speculate content! for now it might be worth tweaking the content based on concerns --Errant ^(chat!) 13:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Cody is correct concerning the defense claims (the interpreter wasn't an "interpreter" but an interviewer who could speak English). But we don't need to engage in this OR. Merely state that Knox claims that there wasn't an interpreter and Mignini claims there was one.LedRush (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(answering TMCk) According to the interpreter, Anna Donnino, she was there well before Knox implicated herself. Donnino states that she arrived shortly after midnight. (ref). Mignini has stated in a CNN interview that the "spontaneous declaration" (self-incrimination?) was at 5:45am and the detention order signed at 8am.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna Donnino was not acting as just an interpreter according to statements made by Knox. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to engage in Berean's OR. Just state that Knox says there was no interpreter, Mignini says there was.LedRush (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What OR? I'm citing secondary sources. "Mignini: Look the interpreter was there, when I heard her there was the interpreter. The interpreter Anna Donnino, who is an interpreter for the police; she was hired by the police." - Drew Griffin Report with Mignini for CNN.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(after ec). So according to the source she had English speaking interrogators in the first interrogation and kept only for a short time without an official interpreter in the second interrogation where she then became a suspect. What sources are denying this account? TMCk (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources say that Knox says there wasn't an interpreter and that Mignini says there was one.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually asked for the sources saying so.TMCk (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
And the interpreter herself stated that she was there.TMCk (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the sources in the article. They are in both the interview section and the slander section.LedRush (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This related edit; we do need to work that information in (I agree as presented it was a bit of a problem). But the reason she was arrested was for the admission she made - that was then later retracted and is now under dispute. So any suggestions for a re-word? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's related to a couple of other problems, so I'm trying to find lost sources. My suggestion of stating "Mignini stateed" was reverted, but I think it could still work, but I felt that if I was getting reverted we couldn't leave the BLP-vio in there. Shouldn't these comments be made one section above?LedRush (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to be honest.. I didn't like it much either I'm afraid. It undermines the content. It is factual she made an admission, it is factual this led to her arrest. It is then definitely factual that she heavily disputes (and the next day partially retracted the statement) it and claims it was made under duress. We can record all of these things I think :) "Mignini felt that..." is a bit weak to me. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Then we need a different source that says all that stuff. The one we have attributes the opinion to Mignini.LedRush (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, is he not just describing events? He doesn't seem to be expressing an opinion :S Sure, their views on the admission are opinions. But then he is just describing that she became a suspect and they halted the interview. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

..and Led, you were reverted because you changed it to say that the interview was conducted by the prosecution which is precisely opposite of what the source says.."Following the discovery of Kercher's body, Knox was interrogated by police but not by Mignini." The source doesn't say that Mignini said that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

'Once arrested, according to Italian law she should have been provided with an attorney' - That should go in for a start. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that she is to be offered the opportunity to have one as soon as she incriminates herself. I don't think it has to wait until an actual arrest. According to the interpreter, Knox declined the offer.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's false. According to Italian law, an attorney is to be provided whether or not the accused requests one. An attorney will be provided regardless of the accused's wish not to have one.CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

She wasn't accused at that time. A witness does not necessarily need an attorney but as soon as she incriminates herself she is no longer a witness but becomes a suspect. And then later, when charged, she becomes the accused. Do you mean "suspect" in your sentence above, Cody? The point at which she was offered to have an attorney present was when she was implicating Lumumba 1 and had not directly implicated herself.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we have sources for either? We know that the court threw out the statement because there was no lawyer present http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-01/world/amanda.knox.author_1_giuliano-mignini-amanda-knox-sollecito-s-dna/4?_s=PM:WORLD LedRush (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They threw it out because at that point a lawyer should have been present, regardless of any requests or wishes of the suspect, just as I said. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Here, the correct term, "suspect" is being used..above, it wasn't. Is there a source which states that a suspect must have an attorney whether they want one or not? I believe that Cody is correct regarding a suspect but I don't have a source. The statement was allowed in Lumumba's defamation case against Knox.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Berean, these requirements are in the Italian Penal Code. For a non-Italian speaker, it's exceptionally diffcult and time-consuming to find them. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The criminal court threw out the statement because of the lack of lawyer and interpreter.LedRush (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rudy Guede's testimony

At present the article reads as though Rudy Guede read out his letter accusing Knox and Sollecito. This is misleading. Guede's lawyer opposed reading out the letter in court and Rudy himself refused to read it. The judge also asked him if he understood all the big words in the letter and he said 'no'. The letter was eventually read out by Mignini.

This is what actually happened; does anyone have a reliable source which confirms this account? Thanks. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Guede was in the witness stand as a letter he had written in response to Alessi's claims was read to the court on Monday" says the BBC, confirming part of what you write. Apparently, the full video is here (at the bottom of the page).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've mangaged to find a source which specifically says the letter was read out by prosecutors. (Of course it wasn't prosecutors plural, it was Mignini) http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/guede-accuses-knox-in-italy-murder-appeal/story-e6frfku0-1226083082145#ixzz1QU7JmQJN

I'll keep looking for one that gives the whole story. Can a link to a video of Guede's testimony such as Umbria TV be used as a reliable source for this or do the facts need to be in writing? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'm comfortable using the video to justify the claim that Mignini read the letter, but I'd prefer to see a source for the fairly important claim that he was asked whether he understood the big words in the letter and said 'no'. The question here is not whether or not he said it (I suppose with some difficulty we could confirm that from the video), but whether or not it is considered important and relevant by reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused because the article does say, specifically, Mignini read the letter: Prosecutor Mignini introduced new evidence by reading a letter penned by Guede in 2010 that referred to "the horrible murder of a splendid girl by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox", and Guede stated that he stood by the contents of the letter. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also; I'd support mentioning that Guede did not want it read out if this can be sourced. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

THanks Errant. It does indeed say Mignini read out the letter. The article must have been edited since I last looked, or maybe I missed that. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that's good - I was scratching my head there for a moment :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference errors

I have commented out two references which aren't currently used. They are still in the reflist, and are named "lumumba-character" and "Kington120908"

if anyone needs to recycle them later.  pablo 21:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pablo, I couldn't figure out what was wrong when Berean pointed out the problem to me.LedRush (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries - it happens a lot when editing large articles which contain list-defined references - you have to find any references you remove in the references section itself. pablo 22:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Some commentators have criticised the Italian legal process."

The US criticism of Italian justice seems odd when foreign nationals arrested in the US for murder are interviewed without attorneys present and then executed (on Thursday). Shouldn't there be something in the article explaining the treatment of foreign suspects in the US for comparison. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/05/obama-stop-texas-mexican-execution Kwenchin (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No. You could go to Human Rights in the US or some similar article, though.LedRush (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

@ kwenchin: Not unless a RS makes that comparison. TMCk (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Knox trial scares aware US and UK tourists

The second such article on this subject.

http://www.lejdd.fr/International/Europe/Actualite/A-Perouse-l-affaire-Amanda-Knox-est-nefaste-pour-le-tourisme-351155/?from=headlines

LedRush (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you happen to have the link for the first one, hopefully in English?TMCk (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

First article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/amanda-knox-case-study-abroad-italy-_n_854298.html
Translation of second from non-RS. http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/02/amanda-knox-case-scares-away-tourists/ LedRush (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It'll give me some more to read tonight. TMCk (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My take on this: The first one (MSNBC) from April quoting La Stampa was discussed before with resulting in being an unreliable study of some students and the second one which is up-to-date has a few single persons opinions but no facts. That's how I read it and I'm not impressed. TMCk (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the translation appears to be from Google with Dempsey's interpretation of it. Not a bad one but also not a (semi) professional translation from some one that speaks French, so it's still Google. Just sayin' TMCk (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The The Huffington Post is itself a blog, at least some bits are blogs and I could not see how to distinguish the volunteer written articles. So not a RS. Result of the survey is not what these articles claim. The previous question told them of the boycotts leading to an inevitable conclusion. A more accurate summary would be: "After being told the Knox Case has caused some people to boycott going to Italy, 60% of American Students say that Knox Case Would Have Some Impact on some people's Choice to Study in Italy." Kwenchin (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is a RS, and the story cites another source.LedRush (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Already discussed and we agreed not to use it. --John (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course that's not true. The new article is from June 30th.LedRush (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that John is referring to the subject matter here. A new article does not change anything...the poll isn't worth mentioning.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So, the new argument is that no matter who reports on this that it isn't worth mentioning?LedRush (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The "first article" misrepresented a survey. Failing to mention it referred to a boycott in one question then asked about it in the next. It was about US students' feelings. This article does not refer to the survey and is a completely separate story. It is about the drop in English speaking tourists and students and visitors. It quotes <<Maintenant sur le campus, impossible de trouver le moindre Américain ou Anglais.>> ("Now on the campus it is impossible to find any American or English [students]"). This is significantly different from the previously stories. I would consider it notable that American and English students are no longer visiting the uni. Kwenchin (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How did the first articles misrepresent the survey. In some editors' opinions here, the survey isn't good, but that doesn't really seem for us to judge. The second article is clearly related as both have to do with fewer American students going to Italy. Of course, the scope of the second article is different (Perugia, not Italy, Brits and Americans, not just Americans), but the relationship is undeniable.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"60% of American Students say that Knox Case Would Have Some Impact on Choice to Study in Italy"

"on Choice" what does this mean? Either 1) On their choice. 2) On someone else's choice. The crucial words are missing. Looking at the details it is (2).

So, out of 800 students how many have chosen not to study in Italy? It could be just 1 that 60% happen to know about. But a headline of 1 out of 800 wouldn't sound very good. The survey doesn't even ask the students have they personally decided not to visit Italy so we don't know. But articles referring to it have a headline as if it's a large number that are influenced. eg Huffington Post:"Amanda Knox Case Prompts U.S. Students To Shy Away From Italian Study Abroad Programs". No student said they would avoid Italy.

Looking at the actual survey:

Q9. Do you think that the controversies coming from the news about the trial of the American student Amanda Knox, 
whom many people think to be innocent, will some way discourage study abroad in Italy? 
 Yes- 13.94% 
 A Little- 47.03% 
 No-28.62% 
 No Response- 10.41%

So 60% say "some impact" that's true. But 75% say there will be "little or no impact". Or "only 13.94% thought it will in some way discourage".

This is apart from the fact that Q8 is about the boycott campaigns against Italy (Donald Trump's campaign against going to Italy). So they have already been told that it has discouraged some people from going to Italy and the articles do not point this out. Kwenchin (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• In the earlier discussion, Hipocrite presented strong arguments against the inclusion of the survey data from either the primary source itself, the Huffington Post article (which is awfully brief) or another secondary source (the biased phrasing of the questions, for example). The more recent French-language article, although a bit more substantial, trades useful specifics for lots of vague description - it is, in essence, a compilation of quotations from residents and students, and citing the opinions of various non-notable people (I don't see how else the source could be meaningfully used), doesn't seem encyclopaedic. TMCk's concerns also lead me to doubt that the SeattlePI translation is particularly reliable. There is a possible connection between the two articles, but for me it is too tenuously drawn and reliant on original interpretation. SuperMarioMan 08:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say it is "reliant on original interpretation"? I just want to make sure the goal posts don't get moved.LedRush (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The second piece does not mention the survey reported in the first. One relates specifically to American college students, the other to residents, students and tourists in Perugia. I fail to see how the relationship between them is an "undeniable" one, as you assert - the link is tenuous and, as you state, the scope of the second piece is much broader. To present the two sources together, to advance the argument for Kercher's murder putting off visitors, would necessitate an awful lot of synthesis - this is what I mean by "reliant on original interpretation". Furthermore, it would be misleading to limit the description of the survey results to some simple percentages (I think that "60% of students ..." has been proposed in the past) without giving the text of the questions - it is all too easy to put a spin on percentages, and the wording of the original questionnaire is biased in places. All in all, mentioning this subject in the article would involve lending it a weight that is undue given the scarcity of the sources pertaining to it. SuperMarioMan 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

24th June, on Facebook's Injustice In Perugia page Anais LLobet is asking for help to contact Madison Paxton for a short interview. She goes to Perugia for a day and comes back with this report published 30th June. It would appear she just interviewed a few people in the street for anecdotes without real facts. Would it be OK to find a RS for the numbers of US students enrolled at the Uni to show how they have fallen? Kwenchin (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be ok. You could argue it's synth because you are setting up a causal relationship, but with three sources pointing out the causal relationship it might be ok. Before we go down this rabbit hole, are there RSs for the numbers before and after?LedRush (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole topic is a slippery slope. "...to the dismay of Perugia inhabitants, who have seen the number of tourists and English-speaking students drop since 2007." Were comparisons done with other Italian University towns? There are a variety of factors coming into play which influence this drop such as the economic downturn which I suspect is the real reason for the alleged drop. This is better left off as it is a tangential POV piece without good data backing it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Knox's statements of where she was at the time of the murder

That article now reads:

"She also said that she could not clearly remember whether she was at her flat or Sollecito's house at the time of the murder."

This is from her statement: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

I had changed it to the more amorphous, and I believe more faithful to the source, statement "She also said that she could not clearly remember the events of that evening."

I believe that latter is better for many reasons. In her note, she states firmly that she stayed at home and had a late dinner with Sollecito (perhaps as late as 11:00pm). But she later says that the police have evidence that she was at the apartment at the time of the murder so maybe the things she "imagined were true" and she was there at the time of the murder (this must be where we got the idea for the current language). The thing is, her statements have different meanings now that the phrase "at the time of the murder" have clearer definition. We know when the court places the time of death, which would mean that if she remembers the time of the dinner as well as she claims, she does know where she was "at the time of the murder". We also know that the police didn't have anything to tie Knox to the flat at a specific time (definitely at that time in the investigation, and most would agree even now).

My issue with the current language is that it takes a definition of the "time of the murder" as understood when the statement was made, not now. And it also takes the least generous reading of her statement and portrays it in the most incriminating manner. She wrote: "I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events 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." Knox is clearly confused (she uses the word 5 times) but believes she was with Sollecito at the time of the murder. She also states firmly she stayed and had dinner with him at 11. Let's not make the worst inferences possible and portray them in the worst light possible. Let's stay closer to the source and say something like "I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered" (direct quote from note) or "She also said that she could not clearly remember the events of that evening."LedRush (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

LR, it is unencyclopedic to not faithfully say what a source say, and I am surprised by your edit that I changed. The article previously said the following:

• "She also said that she could not clearly remember whether she was at her flat or Sollecito's house at the time of the murder", and it was sourced.
• You changed it to "She also said that she could not clearly remember the events of that evening." Quite different, and still using the same source.
• I re-checked the source and saw she actually (also) said "there are things I remember", the opposite of what you added.

You are trying to use Synth/POV to insert information that is not justified by the source.Moriori (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read my statement above. Obviously, I dispute your claim regarding synth/POV and believe the current wording is synth/POV (as stated above) and have offered 1) a more accurate reflection of the source or 2) a direct quote of the source. Surely the direct quote isn't synth/POV, is it?LedRush (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, your argument is flawed. Just because there are certain things you remember doesn't mean that you don't clearly remember the events of the evening.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking about flaws, try reading your last sentence again. That aside, you need to read the source which says "In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused." She herself says she remembers things, but you wrote that she could not "clearly remember the events of that evening". She didn't say that, and neither does the reference. So it can only have come from synth. Moriori (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that you've addressed any of my points. You seem to be just repeating your opinion at this point.

Regardless, because of the problems with the current language, and because no one has offered opposition to it, I will use the direct quote from her note.LedRush (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Women's Shoe Part Two

This line in article: "An additional shoe print, which prosecutors believed to be a woman's, was found on a pillow under the body. Prosecutors argued that it was the right size to be Knox's, although it did not match her footwear.[58] An expert defence witness stated that this was a partial print that matched the pattern of Guede's left shoe,[48]:367-8 that it was similar to four other left-shoe prints found on the pillow,[59] that it was not a woman's shoe size and had not been left by a man's right shoe.[59" should be removed.

I had posted this comment in a previous section that archived: First, Massei does not use the 'Woman's Shoe' as part of the reasoning to convict Knox - "The Court, on this point, takes notice of the opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion." Massei pg368. Then he goes on to say that that she was NOT WEARING SHOES but was moving around the murder seen in bare feet a la the luminol prints - "to whom [=Knox], actually, one [must] attribute moving herself about the murder scene essentially in bare feet,". Massei pg 368. So again, this is NOT evidence, Massei did not draw a conclusion on who the print belonged to; he did not use the shoe to convict and also says Knox was barefooted. The woman's shoe should be removed from the article as evidence used to convict, it was not. Issymo (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC. Since posting the comment two other editors posted their agreement and no one disagreed. Can we get concensus to remove this sentence now? Issymo (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you really certain that no one disagreed?TMCk (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you READ what I wrote, I clearly said since I made the the comment above no one replied refuting my comment. I would appreciate if you didn't provide uncalled for hassling. In my opinion I'm making a documented, sound reasoning. Either respond to that or not. Your comment seems very snarky to me and to be honest has really upset me. I'm trying to improve the article and not play games.Issymo (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems uncontroversial to me. To leave it in simply contributes to confusion when Massei does not mention it so he could not have believed the prosecution argument on this point. Therefore it was prosecution speculation that was not used to support Knox's guilt. I support Issymo. Let's take it out. NigelPScott (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't presume the conclusion "he could not have believed the prosecution argument on this point" and he does indeed make mention of it. To me, it looks like consideration of evidence without prejudice and not a dismissal of evidence. Issymo is attempting to use a primary source and draw conclusions from it that are not immediately evident which goes against WP:PRIMARY. That Knox may have been wearing shoes at one point and barefoot at another may be explained since there was an assertion by the prosecution that Knox & Sollecito were at the crime scene at different times. The judge isn't contradicting himself. The arguments being presented in this thread are original research. The section is titled Evidence and not Evidence which convicted. This thread is covering issue #8 of the NPOV issues above.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, "it looks like consideration of evidence without prejudice and not a dismissal of evidence" He also never accepts the evidence and that is what I'm trying to say. It was not used as convicting evidence. It is just something that was presented in court but not part of the reasoning used for guilt. Don't you see the diffence? Like I mentioned before, there were a lot of things and witnesses presented in court. All of those things are not listed in the evidence section of the article so why is this? By including this sentence it is really clouding the issues that were actually used to convict and that are being appealed. Issymo (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of the women's shoeprint in the article is adding undue weight [1] to one of the pieces of evidence that was not used in the conviction in the Massei Report and it is a violation of neutrality to leave this piece in here and remove all of the other pieces of evidence that were removed from the article as not having a bearing on the case. The prosecution was never able to successfully argue that the print matched any of Knox's footware as shown by the failure of Massei to include it in his final reasonings. This should be removed unless a coherent argument can be made otherwise, which I don't think it can be. Dougbremner (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose that everything from "an additional shoe print..." to the end of the paragraph be struck since the print was a smudge that was never matched to anyone and was not used as part of the evidence to convict. Dougbremner (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• The shoe print in question was attributed to Rudy Guede by Raffeale Sollecito's forensics expert Francesco Vinci. VInci was able to match the print to Guede's Nike Outbreak 2 shoes using technology called Crimescope. This is why Massei had little to say about the shoe print. If this shoe print remains part of the article then I guess we need to add the prosecution's first 6 refuted theories and every other piece of refuted evidence. If we are going to rightly leave that information out then we should also eliminate the information about the shoe print in question. Here's Vinci's report [2] BruceFisher (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"The section is titled Evidence and not Evidence which convicted." Berean Hunter, If it wasn't used to convict how can it be considered 'evidence' at all? On what grounds is it considered evidence? It would be more accurate to say it was an unused theory. I would really like to come to a concensus and remove this sentence. It should not be allowed to be fair. We have, out of the editors bothering with this issue, four editors who are in agreement it should be removed. From what I understand I can't remove it again without it being considered a wiki editor war. Who can remove this sentence? There is no editor who is above another, we should be able to get this fixed without waiting for a holdout editor. Issymo (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Has the sentence already been removed by someone? I don't see it any longer. If it has indeed been removed this section can be closed. I would be very pleased if someone could verify that the sentence has been removed. Issymo (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence has been removed. Dougbremner (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV #7 (Police criticisms)

I've expanded the Interviews section which covers most of issue #7.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Alas, you've increased the POV problems with these edits. You've misused the source to make prosecution claims sound like undisputed facts, and have written it as if everything the prosecution says is true. I've make interim changes, but the other side of the story should be stated as well.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sourced wording. With the exception of the interpreter issue below, what are the other issues?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the most glaring BLP violation, and will work on the other POV issues today.LedRush (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also removed another BLP violation concerning Sollecito's statements about Knox.LedRush (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The current version of the article states "As Knox was initially only considered a witness, her interview was in Italian and conducted without an attorney present or without being recorded". However, we know that the court didn't allow the statements because there was no lawyer present for Knox. Instead of including these two seemingly (but not necessarily) contradictory pieces of info, we should just state that "her interview was in Italian and conducted without an attorney present or without being recorded". Later, when we explain why the evidence is inadmissable, we can explain the prosecution argument. By splitting up the prosecution argument and the court's conclusion (that a lawyer was necessary), those who read the beginning of the passage get the sense that everything in the interview was Kosher, and then we need to clarify. It is misleading and confusing this way.LedRush (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the source refers to this as the prosecution's argument. Also, to leave it without explaining the rationale why seems to implicate wrongdoing on the part of the police or prosecution. You had labeled the NPOV issue as criticisms of the police and then pontificated no lawyer, no recordings and conducted in Italian as if these were the fault of the police. The source explains with a good rationale and does not say that this was from the prosecution's point of view..rather they simply offer explanation. "As Knox was initially only considered a witness,..." helps keep it neutral.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

But your formulation explains the issue from the prosecution side, without referencing that the court threw out the statement because there was no lawyer present. We should keep both explanations together.LedRush (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have already added that to the article, right? I don't mind the addition of the fact that the court ruled her statement inadmissible because she incriminated herself later in the interview but her interview started out cleanly. The reason why it wasn't recorded and there was no attorney from the offset was because she was only a witness. This isn't the prosecution's side and the source doesn't explain it as the prosecution's side.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The explanations need to go together, otherwise it's misleading and confusing to a reader. You get through the first section thinking, oh, she made a confession and the police did everything right. Then, you read that the statement was thrown out because there was no lawyer/interpreter...but didn't we imply that they weren't needed earlier? Waaaa?

Let's either take out the confusing part as it seems irrelevant (the prosecution may have thought she didn't need a lawyer, but the court sure did) or at the very least, put the statements together.LedRush (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others think. I don't see it as being that confusing to the readers. Maybe someone else has an idea here on this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is all fairly standard stuff.. if they were treating her as a witness it is unsurprising that no lawyer was present. That the court later rejected the statement because it was not made in the presence of legal counsel is also far from uncommon - pretty much every case I have ever worked in the UK has had something excluded for this or similar technical reasons. I don't think the original was misleading - the police (apparently) weren't treating her as a suspect. Later the court noted a lack of lawyer for the confession and so refused to accept it as evidence. Simples :) My concern at the moment is: Knox stated that during these interviews she was asked to imagine what might have happened at her flat had she been there.[34] Knox said that she saw Lumumba enter Kercher's room with Kercher. This has two issues - it makes it look a little like her latter statement is undisputed and what she did actually see (which is a problem). It also places her objection as party to the factual event. Ideally we should be saying "at the end of her interview Knox signed an admission saying that she had seen Lumumba enter Kercher's room with Kercher. The next day she retracted part of the statement and said that it had been given when asked by investigators to speculate about what might have happened at the flat had she been there. The statement." --Errant ^(chat!) 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things. 1. I'm not saying that the police/prosecutor opinion and the court's opinion reflect different realities, I am saying they are confusing to a reader (as presented) and seemingly contradictory. If we want to explain it, let's explain it together, clearly. 2. Does anyone dispute that the interrogation called for Knox to imagine what had happened (our sources report it as fact, no opinion)? This should go first. Why take this out of chronological order just to make it confusing or to paint Knox in a negative light?LedRush (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that the interrogation called for Knox to imagine what had happened; uh, no, isn't it quite clearly what Knox says happened? At least via the source. In fact the source says exactly what I suggested, in that specific order too. 1) She was interviewed 2) at the end she signed a statement 3) Knox later said it was given under specific circumstances. 4) It was rejected by the court for another reason. I am discomforted by the way it is currently presented as being intended to state as fact that she gave it under this specific situation (something only she has apparently commented on). --Errant ^(chat!) 20:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. You are saying that everyone doesn't agree that the interrogator's asked her to imagine what happened that night? We have so many sources that state this as fact (not that Knox says it, but that it actually happened), this position seems odd to me.LedRush (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In looking at the current sources, it isn't as clear as I indicated above. The current source doesn't have a rebuttal for Knox's statement, and seems to accept it as fact. The Rolling Stone article presents as fact that the interrogators asked her to remember things that they suggested to her and that she imagine events for them. An older CBS article which made this statement as fact has been pulled. However, the current wording only attributes this to Knox anyway, so...LedRush (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I see what your saying - it's only a slight distinction but... you know :) I agree that no one has openly gone against Knox's claim is pretty solid, but I can't think of better ways of presenting it. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see a way around this issue. In my view, the statement can only be NPOV is you just present the facts, or if you present the initial police justification and the court determination together. Leaving just the police justification gives the reader the impression that they did everything by the book, even though a court has officially thrown out the statement because Knox didn't have a lawyer or an interpreter.LedRush (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have is that throwing out the statement does not say anything else about the police actions, other than the fact that the statement was taken without a lawyer present. The court haven't turned round (at least according to the sources and said "you have done X wrong", they have simply thrown out the statement for that reason). So the inference (the one the sources make, anyway) is that the police mistakenly didn't have a lawyer present for the statement. Beyond that commentary on what the police did is limited to Mignini vs. Knox's version of events. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I would rather say nothing about why something was done and let the reader draw their own inference rather than give only one side of the story, (a side which seems to have been wrong, if the courts are to be believed). I don't understand how giving only one side of the story (and confusing the issues) is somehow less POV than just presenting the simple facts.

Secondly, if the court throws out the testimony based on a lack of interpreter and attorney, that means that the court believed that those should have been provided. It doesn't mean that the police engaged in any criminal activity, but it does mean that their determination of what was required of the police was wrong. Giving the information that says the police's flawed reasoning, when we know that courts have determined that the information couldn't be used because there was no attorney/interpreter present simply doesn't make sense.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

POV Issues update

This is merely an update on my feelings on the POV points above. Feel free to ignore.

I feel like we've addressed 1 and 2 adequately. I don't fully get number 5 (or more accurately, I don't care about it too much). 6 seems like it might be used in a "criticism section", but now there is so much criticism, they might not even need to be used any more. 3 and 4 are addressed (though they could be addressed better), but the related #7 remains open. I wonder how people would feel about a "Criticism of prosecution/police" section or a mini-bio of Mignini?

8 is still being discussed above.

10 has been lightly touched, but it could be worked on.

I will try and addressed 9 today. In my personal opinion, I think we've made amazing progress quickly.LedRush (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

4 Prosecution theories is still not fairly addressed. The subject is touched on in Committal Hearings, where the phrase "satanic rite" is correctly attributed to Sollecito's lawyer. But then in Prosecution And Defense Arguments the phrase is incorrectly ascribed to the prosecution. In fact refusal to participate in a sex game or some variation thereof has always been the prosecution's theory. In her summation to the trial court Prosecutor Comodi admitted she couldn't prove it. End of story. Brmull (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would actually take the opposite opinion. RSs not only mention the satanic ritual as originating from the prosecutor's office (though Mignini has denied personal responsibility) but they also talk about theories we haven't covered: namely jealousy and spite. RSs also criticize the prosecution for frequently changing the motive. If anything, this discussion is still light on prosecution theories and related commentary.LedRush (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mignini in the Micheli hearing actually referred to a "sexual and sacrificial rite" [3]. He was never directly quoted as referring to a satanic sect, more likely he had in mind a Masonic sect, a theory that originated with the local medium. The fact that he linked it to Halloween led to the assumption that it was satanic in nature, but I don't think he ever actually said that. Dougbremner (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That single-source quote from Il Tempo is disputed because the hearing was closed to the press. Mignini has explicitly denied it. If it is used it should be clearly attributed, i.e. "according to Il Tempo...", and Mignini's denial should be included. Brmull (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If one RS ascribes a statement to "the prosecution", and another RS attributes it to a specific defense lawyer describing the prosecution's case then the latter should prevail as it is more specific. There are indeed numerous theories ascribed to the prosecution but when you look for the most specific RS available you usually find that they were said by someone else. I will show you a proposed rewrite later today when I have some more time. Brmull (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

At the time Knox and Sollecito were arrested, detectives said they believed Kercher was killed after refusing to taking part in a violent orgy. At the committal hearing, according to the Italian newspaper Il Tempo, Prosecutor Mignini told the court that the murder was premeditated as a "sexual and sacrificial rite" to take place on Hallowe'en night. It was postponed for one day, to All Saints, because of a dinner party at the house. Mignini denied ever saying that Kercher was the victim of a sacrificial rite. He told the trial court that Knox was easily given to disliking people she disagreed with and the time had come to take revenge on Meredith. He imagined that the two had an argument the night of the murder, although he acknowledged it was impossible to know for sure. He said Sollecito and Guede took part because they were in competition for Knox's favour. Mignini's fellow prosecutor Manuela Comodi was not convinced a motive was necessary. "We live in an age of violence with no motive," she said. Brmull (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This whitewashing of events would be more than enough to merit a POV tag by itself. We can't just throw out tons of RSs because you don't like them. It there are certain theories that you want to add (the knox easily dislikes people so she took revenge), let's add them. We can throw in the fact that Mignini says he didn't call this a sacrificial rite as well. Otherwise, this is an apology for the prosecution.LedRush (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the sources you are using at times directly contradict your text. For example, you use for the proposition that Mignini denies the orgy theory the site from the king5 article, which explicitly attributes the satanic (not the general orgy theory) to Mignini. Which brings us to another problem with your text: you are conflating the sex game and ritual theories. Regardless of your work here, I am going to add some of your cites and your ideas to address your concerns into the article.LedRush (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's POV. It's a paragraph on the prosecution theory of motive. I replaced RS's with more specific RS's just as I said I was going to do. You have to lay out the prosecutions arguments as they were presented in court, and then in the next paragraph perhaps lay out the defense theory. If you instead mix fact, mischaracterizations and media spin all together that's exactly what any good defense attorney would try to do. WP is doing their work for them. As for the KING5 reference, the quote I used was "Mignini denies ever saying that Kercher was the victim of a 'sacrificial rite'." The rest of the article is mostly what Doug Preston says, and as I'm sure you know, Preston has an axe to grind with Mignini, and vice versa. Brmull (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The POV is not that it's the prosecution theory of motive. It is the selection of sources and use of info that directly contracts the writing, as I've pointing out above. Anyway, I've added two of the citations and the corresponding text to the article largely as you've written them.LedRush (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You say, "It is the selection of sources and use of info that directly contracts (sic) the writing." I don't know what you mean. They are RS. They are more precise sources than what was there before. I quoted them accurately. There is no contradiction. Brmull (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• The prosecution's first theory for the motive in the murder involved a satanic ritual orgy -- This is untrue, neither of the sources say that. It was also not the first theory.
• similar to the charges of belonging to a Satanic sect that Mignini had unsuccessfully levelled at 20 others in the Monster of Florence case -- Was this presented in court? Or would it be more appropriate for an article about Mignini. I would also dispute that Obit-mag is a RS. It describes itself as "creative non-fiction".
• Later, the prosecution hypothesised that Kercher's murder involved a sex game gone wrong -- The source doesn't say "later." It says early and now. Also the full quote from Mignini makes clear that Meredith did not voluntarily participate. A RS with the full quote should be used.
• The defence stated that the prosecution had further changed their theory of motive to an economic one -- Mignini said that the missing 300 euros was a "point of friction" not the motive. Of course the defence theory should be presented in its own space, but not in a way that leads the reader to believe this was ever a prosecution claim.
• The magazine Rolling Stone, quoting a prosecutor as stating "[w]e live in an age of violence with no motive," reported that the prosecutors could not prove either motive or intent -- My source above is more specific, gives more context to the quote and should be used instead. The last part is just Nathanial Rich's opinion and does not belong in a paragraph about the prosecution's theory of motive. Brmull (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Both sources say this. You gave another one that did (the one I added to the article, though for a different theory and for Mignini's rebuttal). Thanks.
2. Several sources, including ones you use, have made the connection between the theories in both cases (again, thank you for providing the sources like the King5 one.
3. We don't have to quote the source verbatim...that's actually a copyright violation. The theory did happen later, though.
4. Please see what the source says.
5. Many sources say that the prosecution could not prove a motive, but the Rolling Stone had a quote from the prosecution which put that into context.LedRush (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Now we're just talking past each other. The article will never be NPOV if we can't even agree on what a person actually said versus what is a mischaracterization of what he said. Brmull (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

POV tag definitely belongs on article

The tag belongs because we ever expand with content critical of the prosecution/evidence/judges, but we have failed to present one of the most significant statements surrounding this case by not reporting why the judges considered the evidence compelling. To fix this oversight I suggest we change the first paragraph of the Judges' report section to read:

On 4 March 2010, the Corte d'Assise of Perugia released a 427-page report, detailing its rationale in reaching its verdicts. The judges said that "all of the elements put together, and considered singularly, create a comprehensive and complete framework without gaps or incongruities and lead to the inevitable and directly consequential attribution of the crimes to both the accused, for which therefore they have penal responsibility. ("Massei" ref here).

The Court determined that Guede had been supported by Knox and Sollecito in subduing Kercher after she resisted his sexual advances. It was noted that Knox and Sollecito had consumed hashish and had been reading sexually explicit and violent comics collected by Sollecito, which were alleged to have influenced their behaviour. The court ruled that Knox and Sollecito had acted without premeditation and that no grudge had motivated the crime..

The appeal may well determine that the judges/jurors were in error, but even so, if we add the amendment I have suggested Wikipedia will be able to say it presented all significant facts. If we don't include it, there will be people wondering why we would deliberately not present this information to our readers. I am neither pro or anti Knox, but fully support our POV policy. Moriori (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added that language in. In my quick searches, it seems like it came from page 388 of the Massei report. Can someone please confirm?LedRush (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the report and I confirm that that was the general conclusion although I have not done a line by line confirmation. Dougbremner (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Couple suggestions: (1) The end of the Massei report, the decision, is devoted to aggravating and mitigating factors, which the court decided cancel each other out. This "Judges Report" section should focus on these factors in order to avoid being redudant with other parts of the article. For example, I don't know if hashish and manga need to be in there. Two different knives is not important, but repentance is a mitigating factor. The "bloody" footprints are discussed elsewhere, and in any case they were luminol-positive not bloody. The aggravating factors of rape, theft and falsely implicating Lumumba should be in there. (2) Regarding "The Court determined that Guede had been supported by Knox and Sollecito"--The source said "most plausible hypothesis" and Massei said it was impossible to know for sure. Brmull (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Knox's signed statement

In some reports I see that Knox "stated" or "admitted" that she was with Lumumba the night of the murder. In others, she has a "vision" that she was there. Do we have the actual signed statement so we can just quote what she said?LedRush (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that that has ever been released. (There is, as you know, the transcript however. pablo 22:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The "signed statements" were actually written by the police and signed by her. Without a recording of what was said they were inadmissible as evidence per Article 141 of CPP (Italian code of penal procedure). I don't think they were ever leaked. The "gift" or "memoriale" statement was written by her after the interrogation and cannot be interpreted as her "admitting" to being at the scene with Lumumba. One can read it for one's self and decide what to make of it but I would advice against taking snippets for quotes that could be taken out of context. Dougbremner (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

When I went through the sources for this section, it was disheartening to see that the article often used the sources in ways the original sources wouldn't support, or that they cast the information in the worst light possible. I am very happy we've gone through this process because the POV issues were more ingrained in the article than I even realized.

If what Doug says above is true, we need to reexamine some of the verbs used in the interrogation section.LedRush (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Statements are often physically written down by a police officer during the interview after which the interviewee will read and sign (or amend, initial the amendments and then sign) the statement. This is standard practice in many countries, is it an unusual occurrence in Italy? pablo 16:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• The statements were actually typed out by the police. Here are both statements. [4] [5] BruceFisher (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Was this an unusual occurrence though, or is it normal practice in Italy? I'm just trying to understand Dougbremner's comment above, The "signed statements" were actually written by the police and signed by her and whether this fact is significant. pablo 08:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarity; under interview a policy officer will take notes on what you say - and then often type them up into a statement - you check this statement and if it is accurate you sign it. Sometimes you will be asked to write your own statement - but this is rarely done for people being questioned directly. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the police usually type up statements for witnesses to sign. I actually don't see much in urgent need of change here. Dougbremner (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My concern has been that if we say that Knox admitted to being in the flat, I'd want to know what she actually admitted to.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, at least, it is now a requirement for the statements to be typed. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Knox's phone call. 12:47 p.m. / 4:47 a.m Seattle time

"At 12:47 pm, Knox called her mother in Seattle, who told her to call the police." I would like to add a short add on to this sentence. At 12:47 p.m.(4:47 a.m. Seattle time), Knox called her mother in Seattle, who told her to call the police. (4:47 a.m. Seattle time), it has been reported in many papers that Knox called her mother in the middle of the night. This add on would clarify exactly what time she called her mother in Seattle time. Issymo (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see an issue with this, but I don't see much of a benefit, either. Why is this info important?LedRush (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Because Monica Napoleoni testified in court that the time of the phone call was after the discovery of the body, implying that Knox was trying to cover her tracks. The testimony of Napoleoni about the time of the phone call was in fact false as determined by the telephone logs. Knox did call before the time the body was discovered. Dougbremner (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

... but why is it important to stress the time in Seattle? There are many times mentioned in the article, surely the local time is what is relevant here rather than what time it might be thousands of miles away? pablo 20:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It makes little sense to provide West Coast time here when the whole section is full of times and dates. SuperMarioMan 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't need seattle time to confirm whether or not Knox called before the body was discovered (which doesn't even seem that important anyway...)LedRush (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason it is important is that during the trial it was suggested that Amanda Knox called her mother 'in the middle of the night' and how could she possibly not remember it? Manuela Comodi asked her about a 12:00 noon call that Amanda said she didn't remember, because she called at 12:47 p.m. and not noon. Including the Seattle time would clarify that it wasn't the middle of the night. Issymo (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we discuss this currently in the article (the fact that Knox couldn't remember this and that Comodi asked her about it?) If not, why introduce an answer to a question that is never asked? Again, I don't really care if the Seattle time is mentioned, I just don't understand the need for it.LedRush (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only reason is the one I listed above. It is meant as just a small clarifying point. It has been written in comments of article for years that Amanda Knox called her mom in the 'middle of the night'. Including this is basically meant to give the facts to the rumor. That said, I would like to include it, but at the same time it is not like the women's shoe issue in that it is not affecting POV but only clarifying. I would like to include it if that is okay, but will go with the group concensus on this. Issymo (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the middle of the night phone call might be considered like the woman's shoe print under the body story, i.e. mythology of the case that has been layed to rest and is no longer relevant as not being considered as real evidence in the Massei report, since in spite of the original testimony of Napoleoni and the seeming confusion apparently of the police that the middle of the night in Seattle did not correspond to the middle of the night in Perugia (apparently no one explained to the polizia di stato that the earth is not flat) it is now accepted that she did not call in the middle of the night, and the exact time of her call (before discovery of the body) has been determined. Dougbremner (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As Issymo said, the reason it is important is ... how could she possibly not remember the call? But rather than say it was 4:47am Seattle time, the more helpful thing would be to note that "Although she does not remember it, at 12:47 pm, Knox called her mother in Seattle, who told her to call the police." Considerable time was spent on this at trial, since Comodi was incredulous that AK couldn't remember the conversation in which her mother told her to call the police. On the other hand, I don't think it's useful to mention that the first call to Meredith's phone was 16 seconds. I would delete that. Brmull (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Maria Cantwell rewrite.

Senator Maria Cantwell's statement: WA state Senator Maria Cantwell released a statement expressing her sadness at the verdict on 4 December 2009, saying that she had "serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted [the] trial". She added that "the prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty." [6] I would like to add this rewrite to the article. I think the current portion is too large. Maria Cantwell made one statement and hasn't been heard from since.Issymo (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep in the state department's response that they think the trial was fair. Cantwell's criticisms, as well, were more specific and seem notable to me.LedRush (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that Maria Cantwell's opinions about the Italian justice system aren't very relevant since we haven't heard from her lately and since all Clinton did was say she would "watch closely" which means essentially do nothing. If we include these statements are we going to add Donald Trump? I would argue for cutting. The statements of the State Department are pretty much bureacratese. Do we include the letter of Micahel Heavey about the conduct of the state department to Obama? You see this can be never ending. I think the actions of Girlanda and IIP are more relevant. As a side note I read the missive from the Italian Parliament and Girlanda et al never said to send investigators to the office of the prosecutor in Perugia, this would in fact be an overstepping of his bounds. He merely asked if he would be "looking into it". He also sent a letter to the Italian President Napoletano as the director of the Italy-America Foundation. Dougbremner (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to cut the last as it is not true. Dougbremner (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I also cut some of the Maria Cantwell part. I think that speculations about the Italian judicial system and anti-Americanism by individuals like Cantwell who have no specialized knowledge are inflammatory and do not further the purposes of this page. There is no evidence of anti-Americanism since Sollecito was also convicted, outside of a general distrust of individuals from outside the region, which can be acknowledged to be a universal reaction to "outsiders" that did not play a greater role in this case than in, e.g. the Mexican murderer in Texas. I don't think that most would disagree about that. Dougbremner (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that a Senator's vocal criticism is notable in itself. That she vocalized what many had already accused (anti-americanism and unfairness) is also extremely notable. There may be a way to shorten the section, but the wholesale excision is not the way to go about this.

Also, I am not sure what the changes to the Italian lawmaker's section was supposed to accomplish. I cannot understand the English now and don't see the need for the change.LedRush (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the Cantwell part if you want to include it. As for Girlanda the point is that the original missive did not call for an investigation of the prosecutor's office, which would be a big deal, just asked if he was going to look into the case. The "investigation of the prosecutor's office" was a false story in the English press, maybe the language could be improved. Dougbremner (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification.LedRush (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He did call for an "authoritative intervention" but I think it was taken out of context. Here is what he said. "Ci vuole un suo autorevole intervento che possa mitigare le tante polemiche che la vicenda ha generato " . Soprattutto in America. [7] "One would like an authoritative intervention that could mitigate the controversy the case has generated." And then the reporter appropriately adds "overall in America". I.e. he is asking the President to get involved to help decrease the controversy the case is causing in America. This was mis translated as calling for an investigation of the prosecutor's office. Dougbremner (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the additions to the article about Girlanda et al statements and agree with them. Dougbremner (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images

I have removed the non-free image of Guede because it fails a number of criteria of NFCC, notably WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable by free image) but also WP:NFCC#8 (image not needed to significantly increase reader's understanding of this article subject - remember the article is not about Guede). The non-free images of the crime scene also appear to be excessive; I cannot see any problem with the first, but do we really need two more images to show things that could easily be described in text? Do we actually need an image to show the reader what a bra clasp next to a bloodstain looks like? This one almost certainly fails WP:NFCC#8 and I have removed it as well.

Please note that WP:NFCC suggests the onus is on the person adding the images to show how they meet all ten criteria of WP:NFCC so please do not add them back without discussion here. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the image of Guede that has been removed was issued by Italian police when he was being sought as a suspect in the case. Therefore it is a free image for anyone to use. Since Guede is the murderer of Meredith and is accepted by all reliable sources as the murderer and he has exhausted appeals and his status has been confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court, I would have thought that a picture of him is relevant to the reader. Please can it be replaced? NigelPScott (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons determined that the booking photograph is not in the public domain. Hence, it has been re-uploaded to Wikipedia as a fair-use image. However, its use in this article is mainly decorative, meaning that the image fails (as Black Kite states) to satisfy the non-free content criteria (in that the article contains no critical commentary dependent on the image, and the reader's understanding of the article subject is not damaged due to the absence of the image). That it is "relevant" only weakly justifies its inclusion - it is not essential to have an image of Guede (for the mugshot has little conceivable purpose other than simply to show the reader what he looks like) to understand the topic. SuperMarioMan 16:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - if Guede was notable enough to have his own article then there may be a discussion here (as per whether it is replaceable with a free image, given that Guede is in jail), but in this article it is certainly excessive, as what Guede looks like is irrelevant. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought the Rudy Guede mugshot was okay, a lot of articles include a photo of the murderer. I would like to see the Capanne prison entrance photo and Pillow with Guede's palm print in blood photo removed. A photo of an entrance sign seems like a complete waste of space. Who really cares what a sign looks like? The Pillow with Guede's palm print photo is too violent imo. I think a photo showing that grizzly of a scene should be kept out. I think other photos that might have purpose to include are: the cottage, break-in window, kitchen knife, bra clasp. Perhaps the entrance sign and Guede handprint pillow could be replaced with some of these instead. Issymo (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Capanne prison entrance photo is a free image, so that's purely an editor decision. I'd agree with removing the hand print image, that's non-free and like the bra clasp photo it doesn't show us anything we can't gain from the text.

Unfortunately though the Guede photo doesn't pass our image policies; sure, a lot of articles about murderers have their image in them, but as I said above, according to WP:NFCC#8 that doesn't apply here because what Guede looks like is irrelevant to this article. Also, it would seem odd to have an image of Guede without ones of Knox and Sollecito, and that would almost certainly mean three non-free images and a failure of WP:NFCC#3a. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the murder was committed by three people, all three of whom are still behind bars what is the rationale for only having photos of one of them? It is clearly NPOV to have a photo of one of them while there is no photo of the protagonist. Kwenchin (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? The first thing you see is Kercher's photo.LedRush (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "protagonist" refers to Knox - neither she nor Sollecito has an image. I see the point that Kwenchin is making, but I'm not sure that having a photo of only one suspect (Guede) is really a violation of NPOV. Fulfilling WP:NFCC is a much greater concern, and the presence of an image for all three suspects would probably amount to excessive use of non-free content. SuperMarioMan 15:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This is probably a stupid questions, but how hard is it to get a free image of Knox and Sollecito? They walk into court every week. And to really let you know how ignorant I am of this stuff, could we just use Knox's pictures she posted to social media sites?LedRush (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the free images just don't seem to be there. Out of curiosity, I've performed searches on Google for the three suspects, but I can't say much for what I found: "Amanda Knox" (6 results - none of which is of encyclopaedic quality), "Raffaele Sollecito" (0 results), "Rudy Guede" (0 results). Since all are currently incarcerated, free images are difficult to obtain. At the same time, however, it is rarely permissible to upload non-free images of people who are still alive, since there is an assumption that free alternatives can be made at any time. Kercher being deceased, and her murder being the primary subject of the article, the non-free image of her is warranted. I doubt that it would be acceptable to use social networking photos of Knox for simple illustration - WP:NFCC stipulates that non-free images must have compelling fair-use rationales, and applications that are more illustrative than informative are usually unacceptable. SuperMarioMan 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My question was really if images published to social media sites are indeed non-free. I guess you've answered it.LedRush (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No - unfortunately, I don't think that such images are free. While searching the media questions archives, I found this discussion about MySpace images. Other threads tell me that social networking files, in general, cannot be used (or claimed to be free) due to licensing incompatibility.

Just for reference, use of images in this article was last discussed two months ago. SuperMarioMan 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In general, the best place to find free images is usually Flickr, where the uploader has used a CC license. Worth a shot ... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Partial Section Reorganization

This article might get out of its eternal POV conundrum if it were partially reorganized with the prosecution POV and defense POV separated. The beginning and final sections would stay the same.

4 Evidence 4.1 Forensic evidence 4.2 Prosecution and defence arguments 5 Trials 6 Guede trial and appeals 6.1 Appeals 7 Knox and Sollecito trial and appeals 7.1 Committal hearings 7.2 Trial 7.3 Judges' report 7.4 Appeals

Forensic Evidence Charges against Rudy Guede Fast-track trial Conviction Charges against Knox and Sollecito Committal hearings Prosecution theory Defence theory Massei report First appeal

Brmull (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My problem with this type of reorganization is the potential to mislead readers. Many theories have been postulated, and some of them have been either conclusively proven as false or challenged in a significant manner. By presenting such theories separate from the other party's response, you add to confusion and make it work for the reader to find which theories have been commented on by the other side, and how substantive that commentary is. I'm not a huge fan of the current structure of the article, but I don't see how we can separate out these ideas without adding massive confusion and POV issues. My guess is that until this case reaches a final conclusion, we're not going to find the optimal structure.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In the Prosecution and Defence Arguments section there are by my count 10 statements that are prosecution POV interspersed with 16 statements that are defence POV. The prosecution has the burden of making the case. It is impossible when almost every other sentence is given over to 1.6 sentences of defence POV. A lot of pro-defense editors are fine with this muddle but it is just a form of bad-faith editing. Brmull (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag - Time to remove?

Are there any outstanding issues which people believe are significant enough to merit the POV tag? I see issues, but the POV has been mitigated enough that I would classify them as content disputes. There are some issues which could balloon into POV ones, but people seem to have been on their best behavior these last 12 days or so, so I hope that the good will would carry over into dealing with any of those issues without a tag.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason not to remove it. The editing has been remarkably collegial recently. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I need time to read the article again. I am not able to tonight. I ask that it is not removed at least through this weekend. Issymo (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a C-quality article. It is nowhere near being NPOV. The editors can't even agree on what is NPOV, with many apparently believing that any American media source is reliable and impartial, when in fact inaccuracy and bias of sources is rampant. I strongly disagree with removing the POV tag just because people feel it's not going to improve. A simple precaution like banning unattributed statements in secondary sources would make this article so much better. If commonsense is too much to ask then the POV tag should stay indefinitely. Brmull (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As just one example, the blood spots and mixed-DNA spots which are the most important evidence linking Knox to the scene of the crime aren't even mentioned in this article. It's like an article on Rudy Giuliani not mentioning 9/11. Brmull (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Finding someone's DNA in their own home is meaningless especially when none of it was found in the murder room or on the body of the victim. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that because here's a reliable source supporting you: "just the odd microscopic spatter of her DNA, which is hardly surprising given that she lived in the house." The same reliable source says Knox is a victim of "Italian sexism and anti-Americanism". And then there's this: "Not only does Amanda not fit the psychological profile of a killer in any respect, she doesn't fit the profile of a person capable of violence." You can put all that nonsense in the article and no one can touch a word of it, except by consensus. It's absurd. Brmull (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it should be removed. Content issues can be resolved here on the talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I hate to be a pest, but if any article needs a pov/neutrality tag it is this one. Seeing as how sensitive it is, we need to be ultra careful not to say things without attribution. The very first paragraph states "and property belonging to her was stolen". Who says? Wikipedia? Nowhere in the article is that statement justified by source/s. The overwhelming feeling I have is that over time the article has developed like Topsy with many well intentioned people adding their 2C but creating an end result that looks like Wikipedia is saying things happened, not sources. Following is one single paragraph that I have copied from the article. The only amendments I have made to it is to add reference tags, and to point out a non reference.

"At 12:07 pm the next day, Knox called Kercher's UK mobile phone, ringing for 16 seconds. Knox testified that Kercher had always carried that phone since she expected calls about her mother's recent illness. One minute later, she called her flatmate, Filomena, 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 called the first phone again. The flatmate called Knox back three times. During the final call, which commenced at 12:34 pm, Knox said that the window in the flatmate's room was broken and that the room was a mess. At 12:47 pm, Knox called her mother in Seattle, who told her to call the police. Sollecito then made two calls to the emergency number 112, at 12:51 and 12:54 pm. He reported a break-in, blood, a locked door and a missing person. Before the Carabinieri arrived in response to these calls, two officers of the Post and Communications Police came to investigate the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones near another house.[ref not accessible] Knox and Sollecito were outside and told the police that they were waiting for the Carabinieri, that a window had been broken and that there were bloodstains in the bathroom."

Some of these points are so precise that they cry out for sourcing, as do other claims. For instance, where is the source for Amanda Knox testifying that Kercher had always carried a UK phone as she expected calls about her mother's illness? In fact, where in the article is there anything substantial about Knox's testimony full stop? We have a section headed "Knox and Sollecito trial and appeals". Within that we have a subsection called "Trial". It has only three short paragraphs, and absolutely nowhere among them is there any testimony from Amanda Knox saying what actually happened. Hard to believe. Moriori (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The way I read it Dempsey's book was the source for all that info. As to whether Dempsey's book should be a RS when previous editors concluded that her Seattle PI blog is not is another matter. One of ground rules for this contentious article should be that every sentence has a reference. Brmull (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are not merely "content issues" here Berean. There are fundamental disagreements as to how the article should be organized, what is a reliable source, and how those sources can be used. This article should not only have a NPOV tag but a DISPUTED tag until these fundamental issues are addressed. Brmull (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless Meredith threw her own mobile phones away into someone's garden some time on the evening of Nov 1st 2007, they were stolen. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove I am troubled by the article; my sense is it has become a you-be-the-jury article that favors the defense. The forensic evidence section is especially troubling because it has merged the first and second trials; the material deprecates the first trial without the second being resolved. It repeatedly states the findings of the first trial and then an authoritative rejection in the second. The evidence was contested in the first trial, and the prosecution prevailed. The evidence is contested in the second trial, but we don't know which side will prevail (but it looks good for the defense). The section also confuses biological evidence with the broader forensic evidence. The article's prosecution argument leads off with a Satanic motive seemingly designed to discredit the prosecutor as one obsessed with unsustainable Satanic motives. The prosecution was not outrageous; as Time said, Knox put herself in front of the firing squad. She claimed a locked door was normal, but a flatmate contradicted her. She claimed she was not worried about Kercher, but she contradicted herself when she described her efforts to see if Kercher was alright. The staged crime scene is central to suspicion on K&S, but the staging is not all about where the glass fell; no valuable items were missing or even set aside in the left front bedroom. While such suspicious behavior by K&S should not be enough to convict, it shows the prosecution argument has more substance than a Satanic theory. I would remove the tag because it is not a warning to the reader, but I'm not happy with article. Glrx (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions, many of which I made earlier. On behalf of both of us I'm going to make those changes and let's see what happens. P.S. I am not agreeing with removing the tag. Brmull (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I not only disagree with 90% of what Glrx said (including the odd reshapings of the events which seem to indicate a very strong personal POV), but I would like to remind Brmull that he has suggested a course of action which fits perfectly with the idea of an edit war. Correct procedure to boldly edit, revert, discuss per WP:BRD. However, I do agree with removing the tag.LedRush (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

LedRush is correct. Per the agreement, none of the issues presented here are related to why the tag went up and the agreement of when it comes down. No moving of the goalposts, please.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with removing the tag, it should be noted that Brmull was not part of the agreement, the agreement didn't cover new items (inexplicably by demand), and that any editor can put up the tag if they discuss specific POV issues here, while something more than consensus is generally required to remove it.LedRush (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Glrx, none of our suggestions are ever going to happen because they will be reverted and nitpicked to death by editors who a priori disagree with 90% of what we want to do. It's a huge disincentive to anybody investing substantial time improving this page. Yet you are willing to have the POV tag removed??? I don't understand it. (As an aside Glrx I have looked your previous comments and your POV on this case appears quite different from mine, so I suspect the reason we agree is that your changes just plain make sense.) Brmull (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's back up and focus on ACCURACY before addressing NPOV. There are a number of statements in this article that are just flat-out wrong. To begin with, the medical examiner found that the victim's hyoid bone was cut, not broken by strangulation and she died by both asphyxiation and blood loss. Can we agree to change that? Brmull (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources to back up the statements, and we don't spend too much space on it, of course.LedRush (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, I support removing the tag. I believe there is currently a consensus to do that, so I will remove it. (BereanHunter already did.)

Editors may add a new POV tag, but they must identify a specific POV problem; see the list generated in the agreement. When editing on that specific problem stops for a few days, then the POV tag should come down. That is the rule. The agreement relaxed that rule, and it did have some good effect.

I will not participate in any insert/revert compact. Material should be judged on its merits, and disputes should be resolved by consensus.

I disagree with the notion of heavily seeding cn tags throughout an article. There is some duty to find sources before adding the tag. The Massei report has a lot of material.

Nothing (except time and outside commitments) prevents you or me from editing this article.

Glrx (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he put an accuracy tag, not a POV tag, up.LedRush (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I now see you've addressed below. Sorry.LedRush (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 factual dispute

A disputed tag was entered for the entire article.

Should the tag stay or be removed?

• Remove. The tag did not specify the particular problem, and the article has many source citations. Most of the statements are clearly supported. To the extent the tag is a substitute for a POV tag, it is inappropriate; those issues are separate. Glrx (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove. The article is very well-referenced. If any facts are wrong, contributors should correct them in the usual way using citations for any corrections made. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Driveby tagging may be removed on sight (WP:DRIVEBY). Somebody tagging and then running off without addressing their concerns on the talk page doesn't amount to anything. Removed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am all for removing it, but this is clearly not driveby tagging. He listed specific concerns, discussed them, and stated his intention to address them and tag the article.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? After tagging, he should have started a separate thread here on this page that editors can easily find...not a posting under a different thread topic (somewhat obscure). Rather than discuss the tagging, I would prefer that he works to improve the article. That tag is related to bringing discussion to this talk page...but he hasn't initiated a discussion that requests/requires other editors input. Where would I respond or more clearly, where's the discussion? What is being requested?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He clearly indicated the issue in the only active thread. But whatever, this isn't my fight. If you want to ignore the spirit of the rules regarding procedure based on him not putting this in the right heading, go ahead.LedRush (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm following the spirit of the rules. Please read Template:Disputed#Usage to see how it is supposed to occur. Then look at this version of the tagged article making sure to click on the link which takes the new editor to the active discussion. Both versions of the article with this tag are screwed up aren't they? The tag would be nothing but confusion for editors as it doesn't take them to any such discussion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, acting in good faith you'd not simply revert, you'd help him meet the guidelines to which you refer. He obviously brought up specific points, as he has for a few days now. I don't agree with a single one of his points, but that's neither here nor there.LedRush (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep;. In any case this is not a straw poll. If one editor believes in good faith the article is factually incorrect, the tag stays until that editor's concerns are resolved. The accuracy tag is not an alternative to a POV tag. I believe the article should have a POV tag as well, but I am willing to ignore that for now in the interests of having a discussion of factual errors. I am under no obligation to list all my issues at one time, but I will list three and how I am addressing them:

- "trial de novo" means "new trial". This is unsourced. The appeal is not a new trial therefore I am striking this term.

- "confused and nervous" referred to Sollecito's behavior in the hours after the murder, NOT on November 5. The Nathaniel Rich piece has so many glaring inaccuracies that I am disputing it as a reliable source for anything in the article. I will edit the text to clarify.

- The cause of death is in conflict with Dr. Lalli's report and I will fix it and find a reliable source, or the Massei report if necessary.

More to follow... Brmull (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This was much discussed before - it is definitely worth checking the talk page archives before making removals. The appeals are trial de novo (not sure why you think it is only English Common Law.... it's certainly far less used here than in some countries! Anyway; there was a source somewhere, anyone know where it has gone? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well... On the one hand, this is perhaps more justified than the POV tag. On the other hand, it should not linger indefinitely. I echo much of what I said before in discussions regarding the NPOV dispute - to me, it seems that this general sense that the article needs to be tagged, and the debates that frequently arise from the repeated additions and removals of particular tags, are consuming too much valuable time and energy - time and energy that could be better spent proposing and making changes. SuperMarioMan 22:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• A few comments on the edits I just did: It is repeated several times in the article that the appeals started in December and are expected to go through the end of the year. Two times would probably be enough, don't you think? I also removed some detail about the thyroid artery and cut to the hyoid bone because it was improperly sourced and wasn't in my AP source. Massei seems to be the only source for that info if someone thinks it's important. Brmull (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Next three to work on:

-The phrase "widely described as controversial" is unsourced and needs to go. We're not supposed to say that in WP anyway.

-Book "returned before 10 am the next day" is single-sourced to Dempsey's book. The Michaeli report says "prima possibile" (as soon as possible). In my view, as with the Rolling Stone article, Depsey's book is not news, has numerous errors, and should only be used as a source as a last resort.

-"As Knox was initially only considered a witness, her interview was in Italian..." The fact that the interview was in Italian has no relation to her being a witness, nor does the source make such a claim. Furthermore, to say the interview was in Italian without saying a police interpreter was present is grossly misleading, which falls under the purview of an accuracy dispute. Brmull (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I tweaked the last point. Controversial could probably be sourced but I don't have time right now. Agree on Dempsey; it's a really poor book (nearly made my eyes bleed reading it) and RS's have questioned its veracity - so anything of any uncertainty needs other sourcing the back it up. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Wales suggested using Murder in Italy and Angel Face as RS where ever possible. I see nothing wrong with that. Saying that Murder in Italy is poor is really showing your bias, it is by far the most well researched and thorough of the Knox books. Issymo (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The trial is controversial and continues to be so. This is self-evident from the huge amount of media coverage it has received and continues to receive. It was Jimbo Wales himself who wanted that added to the article, IIRC. It sounds like you want to roll the article back to the state it was in a year ago. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Jimbo Wales himself" has no more influence than anyone else, and right now I find myself disagreeing with him. A quick Google News search for "meredith kercher trial controversial -movie" (keyword movie removed so that all results returned would be about the trial and not about the movie) turned up zero results from reliable sources. At present I am unable to verify that this has been "widely described as controversial". If you could please provide a few reliable sources from things like newspapers describing the trial as controversial, I will add those as references for the statement. If no such sources can be provided and I can't find any myself (I'll keep looking), then I will remove the statement. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this phrasing needs to be sourced, if no sources identify the controversy we can't record it. Self-evident is not really enough for such a description. I am sure we had a source though. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we went over this before and identified 5 or 6 sources which called this controversial. A simple google search confirms that dozens (if not hundreds) of RSs call the trial controversial, including some that I seem to remember being in our article. This seems like a waste of time to me. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=amanda+knox+controversial+trials&cp=33&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0n&aqi=q-n1&aql=&oq=%22Amanda+Knox%22+controversial+trial&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4b0b76f839a314b5&biw=1024&bih=531

BTW, Deskana, your search criteria are a pretty good argument about why Knox needs her own article.LedRush (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, actually that Google search consists of unreliable sources that call the trial controversial. And some reliable sources, none of which actually appear to call the trial itself controversial (I only checked the first 10 or so pages). And no source at all that notes how wide a controversy it is. I am sure we had a meta source that discussed this? Did we not? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. It is obvious the case is controversial by the volume of articles written about the controversy. Issymo (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Time article on the first page which I think we're already using in this article isn't good enough? Why would that be?LedRush (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A great many of those results returned are not reliable sources (and again quite a few refer to the movie, which leaves me wondering why you didn't remove that keyword like I did), but there is actually one on the first page that seems reliable. This one explicitly describes the trial as controversial, and it seems like a fairly reliable source. If we can find some more, then I can add them in. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have "movie" as a keyword, but I didn't bar it because many of the sources are covering the movie and calling the trial controversial.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had a clearer source than that... certainly that would support describing it as a controversial trial. But it does not make a comment on how widely it is considered so... did we not have a source that did that (searching the archives turns up nothing). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion (and one below it) [8] have about 15 sources for calling the case controversial. This has been gone over so many times I can't believe we still need this conversation. Though we don't need to per WP policy, should we just take 3-5 sources and jam them after the word controversy in the lede? It looks ugly, but it seems the only way to stop this silly argument from cropping up again.LedRush (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And another for the idea of it being "Highly controversial", though the other sources are more reliable.LedRush (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It feels like we're revisiting discussions from several months ago here. Does anyone else agree with the unilateral removal of the description of the appeal as 'de novo'? 'De novo' seemed a good descriptions of the appeal trial to me since it is a retrial not a common-law style appeal. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is very, very bad dejavu. Almost satircal in nature. What controversy? Amazing we have to discuss this. Issymo (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that many sources use this term. Sources do seem to say that new evidence can be entered and it's different from an appeal as one would expect in the US. Regardless of whether we use the term, we need to explain, briefly, how this appeal is different than an appeal the reader may expect.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So because one person doesn't like the shorthand term 'de novo' we now have to add an extra sentence to the article explaining how the trial is different from a US appeal? Is that what Wikipedia calls 'consensus'? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's back up a second. What sources either describe the trial as de novo or describe the trial in such a way that we can say it's de novo? I know they're out there, but do we have any? (BTW: I'm personally fine with the de novo language as it is. However, we must have RSs for statements, and I just don't remember if we actually got any, though I do know they're out there).LedRush (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page on the Italian legal system says an appeal is a retrial at which new evidence and witnesses can be introduced. The editor who removed the 'de novo' phrase did it on the incorrect grounds that Knox's appeal is not a retrial. I know we can't use Wiki as a reference. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is one source that uses the term 'de novo' [9] Issymo (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, that is a mirror of the wikipedia articel.TMCk (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But it's been trusted for over 100 years! How do I know? It told me so!LedRush (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Aye, that's funny.  :) Issymo (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 factual dispute (Part II)

Cont'd from July 2011 factual dipute...

• Regarding "widely considered to be controversial" - it doesn't matter if there are 15 sources calling the case controversial. I'm sure I can find articles calling the case straightforward. So unless someone comes up with a reference with those exact words then it's WP:WEASEL. There are many sources saying something along the lines of "the case has gotten a lot of media attention". We should say that instead.
• trial de novo (de no'vo): "a new trial or retrial held in a higher court in which the whole case is heard as if no trial had been held in a lower court." The rules of an Italian first appeal are that all the proceedings from previous trials are automatically admitted and the court decides what new evidence it will hear. In this case I believe there are six areas that the judges has agreed to re-litigate, one of them being the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp. Many other requests to re-examine evidence were declined. So this is not a "new trial". What is the argument for using a term that is unnecessary and imprecise? Brmull (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But all of the evidence from the first trial is reevaluated in the appeal. It isn't just accepted. That's why it's a retrial. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Here are three new issues:

-->"[Guede] was convicted on all counts on 28 October 2008"... No, there was only one count, "murder aggravated by sexual assault".

-->"Guede was tried for murder, sexual assault and the theft"... Not in source. He was just tried for murder aggravated by sexual assault.

-->"in which he said that Knox was not at the flat at the time of the murder"... Not in source. Guede never said Knox was not at the flat. He just didn't mention her at all. Brmull (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. In Rudy's statement of Nov 21st 2007, he specifically says Amanda was not at the flat. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From that statement, Guede said Knox was not there at the time Meredith searched her room. Regardless, the statement I'm constesting says "BEFORE his arrest". Nov 21st was AFTER he was arrested in Germany.

Secondly, this is a discussion about the accuracy of specific statements. In the case of MK returning the book by 10 am, we have two references (Dempsey and Micheli). Dempsey is the ONLY source for 10 am, and Micheli says something completely different ("as soon as possible"). My argument is that this detail is not important enough that we should try to figure out who is right. We should just remove it. Brmull (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding whether the case is controversial, we have sources to back up the claim and nothing that contradicts it. This is simple and until someone gets sources that contradict it, this discussion is pointless.

Regarding Knox not being at the flat, we have sources that confirm this. These are non-issues.

Generally, if we want to dispute current sources, let's try and got others that contradict them and then let us analyze which source is more reliable. This method of pot shots is not productive.LedRush (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, according to this source, Guede was tried for murder, sexual assault and theft (and acquitted of the latter) . "Last October, Guede was tried and convicted of murder and sexual assault, but acquitted of theft in a separate, fast-track trial."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the 'factual accuracy' tag should be removed since it seems the editor who put it there is tilting at windmills, to some extent. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Brmull (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept that Guede was tried and acquitted. The Italian sources are confusing, and Vogt is generally a very good source. Brmull (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If he was acquitted, why is he in jail? And why do all the RSs say otherwise?LedRush (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Acquitted of theft silly! Brmull (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Guede's Skype chat--we have the audio (Il Stampa), we have a transcription, and we have an English translation. Nowhere does Guede say Knox was not there. I don't know where The Telegraph[10] got that info, but it's obviously incorrect. If you just think about it--Guede said in the chat he was in the bathroom when he heard the screams, so how would he know that Amanda was not there?

Regarding whether the case is "widely considered to be controversial"--I continue to request that it be removed as WEASEL. My second choice is to add to the list of supposed controversial elements such things as the defamation judgement and the petitioning of the U.S. and Italian governments. Plus a sourced statement that there has been widespread support for the Kercher family.

I'll add one new issue for now, since I've got to go back and deal with old stuff:

-->"the court explained it reduced Guede's sentence by 14 years because he was the only one of the three defendants to apologise"... This is unsourced and untrue. The court reduced Guede's sentence because he was allowed the same mitigating factors granted to Knox and Sollecito, reducing his sentence to 24 years, from which he got the standard 1/3rd removed for accepting a fast-track trial. Brmull (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The reduction in sentence is not automatic for the crime of murder under the fast track procedure. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? My understanding is that the court is not obligated to accept a request for fast-track trial, but once accepted the 1/3 reduction is automatic. Brmull (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the 1/3 reduction was automatic as well. I also thought that Guede had his sentence reduced because he apologized, though he didn't really apologize for the crimes of which he was convicted.LedRush (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we already talked about Sollecito's behaviour on 5 November. The Newsweek source directly contradicts Rich's Neverending Nightmare, as do a ton of other sources, e.g. ABC News. He was "confused and nervous" on 2 November. We have to go with the version that's better sourced. Brmull (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please show me in the sources you provided where they direction contradict the Rolling Stone story and where they explicitly say that he was "confused and nervous" on Nov. 5?LedRush (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article says Sollecito was 'confused and nervous' on the night of Nov 5th and so does the ABC news article cited. I don't understand what this argument is about. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

-->I have some concerns about this paragraph:

After nearly six months of hearings, the trial was shut down early for summer, when Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to release to the defence previously withheld biological evidence.[129] On 14 September 2009, the defence requested that the murder indictments of Knox and Sollecito be thrown out due to the length of time that the prosecution had withheld evidence. Judge Massei rejected the defence’s request.[130]

I can't find a RS for "shut down early". Nor for Massei "ordered the prosecution to release". Nor for "withheld biological evidence" (it was 300 pages of documents). As for "Massei rejected" it was the the jury's decision, Massei just announced it. The cited sources do not back up any of these claims. Brmull (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

-->Knox was convicted on "all charges except theft" - There is confusion among sources due to the fact that they were convicted and sentenced for theft of the mobile phones, but not for stealing the money and credit cards. This is per the Massei report. Brmull (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I commend the focused disputes on particular facts. However, I think those disputes are more appropriately addressed by adding {{dubious}} tags to the challenged facts rather than hanging a dull {{disputed}} tag on the whole article. If a section has serious factual problems, then a {{disputed-section}} tag could be used. Glrx (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We are going section-by-section. If editors prefer that I put tags on each section that has serious factual problems I will be happy to do so. But right now we are talking about the lede anyway. As for the dubious tag, that would be appropriate if and when we take a look at things that are dubious. Brmull (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My second attempt to resolve the "widely described as controversial" dispute seems to have failed. What is the formula for determining if a case element meets that definition, so I may check for factual accuracy? Is the prosecution "widely described as controversial", or merely one prosecutor? Are the victim and her family controversial? What is the formula for determining which is elements are NOT "widely described as controversial"? Why shouldn't non-controversial elements be listed for clarity? Brmull (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know, the description of "widely described as controversial" is already a compromise. The article should just say that the case is controversial as fact. We have 15 RSs which back this up. However, as appeasement for one or two people who don't think the case is controversial, we gave it the attribution...more specific ones don't makes sense when so many sources call it controversial. If you'd like to avoid the weasel words, let's just follow what the RSs say and call it controversial.LedRush (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aside: I want to stay focused on the factual dispute for now, but "According to Knox's father..." is a huge WP:UNDUE violation. Furthermore the editing history of this article has been to avoid the rabbit hole of he-said/she-said by non-participants. Brmull (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this went in because people wanted to attribute this opinion, rather than just say other sources, generally reliable but not as solid, said about it. I could try and find a better cite. But I gotta say, your track record on disputing the information is so bad, I'm not excited about having to spend a huge amount of time finding more sources when the sources we currently have already do the job and these issues were already discussed in the past. Do you think you could do some more diligence on your claims before deleting them or questioning them here? Perhaps could you actually cite to a reliable source which backs your claim when you make the claim here? That could save a lot of time and duplicated efforts.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is Brmull, you claim sources back up your claims but they don't. The ABC news article you cited above does not refer to Sollecito being confused and nervous on Nov 2nd. It's referring to the night of Amanda's interrogation when she implicated Lumumba, Nov 5th. I've reverted your edit accordingly. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Edits

Organized knox appeal area, added recentism tag, and correct misspelling of defence. User:Mokaiba11 —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

Final spelling and grammar checks, cross-referenced with UK english spellchecker. User:Mokaiba11

I know that you meant well but please be careful. You altered the titles of publications as well as urls to match ENGVAR and we don't do that. Titles & urls should remain as they are regardless of which variation of english they may be.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Appeals Section Changes

The recent changes to the appeals seem to make the article much more difficult to understand. By putting everything in strict chronological order, it makes it very difficult to follow the progress of the appeals. Furthermore, one edit is a badly worded quotation which seems to me to be the only thing that really smacks of too much recentism. Otherwise, the reporting on the trial seems to coincide with the importance of the events, not the time in which they happened. I'd revert all the edits made, though I don't know if that is an automatic breaking of the 3RR or if it would be considered one refert.LedRush (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be a single revert, and agree with your comments. Although it does help highlight the level of detail in the section - a blow-by-blow account is something for a blog or advocacy site, not for something that purports to be an encyclopedia article. Ravensfire (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the months and left the years, if you dont like the years just remove the years but dont revert as you would revert the order and spelling corrections. ">(User talk:Mokaiba11 —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

The issue is that your reorganization makes the section a mess and difficult to understand. And your spelling corrections weren't very correct.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This section will continue to evolve. I have no particular position other than it should be accessible to people who are looking for a summary of the appeals process as well as the latest details. Brmull (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing I do have a strong position on is that quote by Curt Knox: WP:UNDUE. Inflammatory. Conjecture. Gotta go. Nadeau has an account of what the independent experts actually said. While they complained about the delays getting certain information (delays Stefoni's letter suggested arose from confusion about what they wanted), it is not clear that this was the reason for the 40 day extension. In any event this delay had almost no impact on the trial, compared to delays caused by the personal issues of the attorneys and judges. It is WP:UNDUE. Brmull (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that your preferred sources appear to be Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt. I personally find them to be rather unreliable and they both have a very particular slant on the case, i.e. they are certain Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Not exactly a mainstream view any more, I venture to say. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've come around to the view that you have to take every article on its own merits and evaluate it against the other reports. But reporters who were actually in the courtroom are a good place to start. Brmull (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox ?

Not yet notable for her own? Merrill Stubing (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{Bracing for the storm}LedRush (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Soon.. very soon.. looks like the couple will be acquitted.. considering the key evidence all just went to.. how do Brits say it?.. Shite? Then there'll be no more excuses as to why Amanda Knox doesn't rate her own page.. and those that have WP:dragged their feet for years, and thrown up every WP:roadblock they can dream up, will have no choice but to allow the whole truth about this whole ugly case to be told.. warts and all.. The sad fact is they and Wiki in general have contributed to smearing a couple innocent kids and stealing 4 years of their life..(and you know who you are..) Don't know how you can look in a mirror.. don't know how you sleep at night.. but can't wait to help with the rewrite.(otherwise, just checkin in so you know I'm no sockpuppet)18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC) tjholme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjholme (talk • contribs)

Bit of an extreme assessment isn't it? Wiki helped contribute to their imprisonment? LMAO.

Prevailing in their case would have nothing to do with a discussion of notability for a separate article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is obviously not the a universal assessment. Many here have argued that prevailing in the case would make them support a separate article (I think Pablo among them). It would strengthen arguments that this is not "one event", for one. It would also raise the BLP issue of having a redirect for an innocent person go to an article about the murder they didn't commit. Others, like the Admin who closed the Casey Anthony article discussion, thinks that guilty people would/should have their own article [11], while those that are found innocent shouldn't. I don't fully understand the reasoning, but whatever. It is clear that the outcome of the trial does indeed affect the calculus for many people.LedRush (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What you have linked to is neither a closure of discussion nor is it a comment from an admin. It is an opinion from a user. Safiel is not an admin. It would not be a BLP issue to have a redirect link to this article because, one way or the other, she is involved. If found innocent, guilt is not inferred by having a redirect. But rather than debate this now, let's wait and see what happens. We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said I linked to a closure of the Anthony discussion, I said the guy who made the closure made that argument. I thought because this guy closed the argument that he was an admin. I guess he's not (which makes me wonder why he closed the discussion). Anyhoo, back to the substance. I think it is best to revisit the topic in the fall, after the appeals, seeing as we won't get people to budge from their opinions on either side yet.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I say the new twist in her trial is yet another indicator of notability for amanda knox. I think its stange that Kno doesnt already have her own bio article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In what way?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we put off an Amanda Knox article and any further radical rewrites of this article such as are being attempted at the moment until after the appeal is done? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is bound to be a lot of re-writing after the appeals have finished no matter what the outcome is. Most of the efforts now will be washed out at that time.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody remove the factual accuracy tag which has just been put back? Thanks. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I did it. I don't think there's any agreement at all that the article merits the tag. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 factual dispute (Part III)

Cont'd from July 2011 factual dispute Part II...

• Okay I may have screwed up on the date that Sollecito was "confused and nervous", but it was an honest mistake since multiple articles based on AP reported, "Police officer Daniele Moscatelli told a court in Perugia, central Italy, that Raffaele Sollecito looked "quite confused and nervous" during the questioning in the hours that followed the murder."
• Rather than "widely described as controversial" as a compromise why not just say "described as controversial". That, unlikely "widely described", is substantiated by the sources. To say "the case is controversial" would be akin to saying "knox is beautiful" rather than "knox has been described as beautiful". Inappropriate.
• I'll ask again how the four "controversial" elements were selected. First of all, the cites should be thrown out except for Vogt which can be used as a cite for three of the four claims. As to what can be included in the questioned list how about "Italian justice system" based on this article? I can find many others. Brmull (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't currently see a need for a wholesale rejigging of the article, particularly when you want to make edits which on examination aren't supported by the sources you cite. I see no need to remove references from the article because you think one reference will do. It seems a bit late in the day to be rewriting things to minimise any suggestion of controversy. We had a very lengthy debate on that subject a few months back, and the current phrase is a compromise. It's hard to muster the energy to go through it all again. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd not include the Time and Guardian sources, or one of the leading books on this subject. We had other sources but pared it down so as not to clutter the lede with sources. The aspects were chosen because they are pretty obvious and supported by RSs. Regarding the "widely described as controversial" statement, as I've already explained that was the compromise position. If that is unacceptable, I would just state it as a fact seeing as even the most hardcore "guilters" accepted that the case was hugely controversial in the link to the previous discussion above.LedRush (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Described as controversial" is fact. "Widely described as controversial" is opinion. It's as simple as that. The way the aspects were chosen was arbitrary. I want to add more to the list that I think are "pretty obvious" and supported by RS's. As for the existing sources, the first one is a dead link. And you're telling me an interview with the sister of one of the editors active on this site is a RS for the lede? Come on. Brmull (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With your definitions of fact and opinion, we'd have to say that "Obama is described as African American" and "the sky has been described as blue". The aspects are not arbitrary, and perhaps you should assume good faith here. As for the sources, why don't you sift through all the other sources we discussed as well, or through the dozens of others out there and choose the ones you like. Regardless, the language is so uncontroversial that choosing your own sources should be easy. Not that we need to as we've done this all before.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Eating yellow snow has been described as a bad idea. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between "widely described as controversial" and the examples you gave is that the examples you gave are WP:FRINGE, whereas there are a lot of people on both sides who see the case as open and shut. Brmull (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of any cases where RSs describe the trial as uncontroversial or not controversial? I know of several that call Obama of mixed parents or mixed race, and many that mention the sky is technically not blue.LedRush (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's my case. The current wording doesn't past muster with me, because of the subjective adverb "widely" as well as the arbitrary list of things that are supposedly questionable. But to label the case as a whole controversial because some RS casually opine that the case is controversial is not right. It needs to be neutral language and precise for an encyclopedia.

The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions,[1][dead link] coverage in the news media[2][page needed][3] and the conduct of the police investigation[4][5] and prosecutor.

This works:

The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States,[1] and aspects of the case are controversial.[2]

We can go round and round, or we can shift to a different approach and maybe get this settled. Brmull (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue. Your proposals are contradicted by long discussions here and the sources. No one has identified a problem with the current language.LedRush (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And the aspects of the case are not chosen arbitrarily. These aspects are highly publicized and we have many sources discussing issues with those aspect of the case. If you think there are other aspects of the case which should be on the list in addition to those, and find sources which support your opinion, then we might have something to discuss.LedRush (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The current wording in the lead ("widely described as controversial, with questions raised...") doesn't belong where it is. There's a lot one could say in the lead to describe the trial; singling out English-language criticisms from the defense side brings up obvious undue weight problems. Better to not bring up such things in the lead. Townlake (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, the criticisms are not from the defense side, but from the media. The media reporting has been largely in the US, UK and Italy, and all three currently have been highly criticial of aspects of the trial. Seeing as we spend a large amount of the article talking about these aspects, and seeing as the case is notable because of the controversy, there is no where this can be other than the lede.LedRush (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is going to have to remain an unresolved factual dispute I guess. I'm not going to waste my time coming up with a list of dozens of elements of this case that have been questioned by the media, which will still inevitably be biased and incomplete. Brmull (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it's technically a dispute until someone provides evidence to support their position.LedRush (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please specify what evidence you want because plenty has been provided. Brmull (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy Tag - Is there consensus to remove?

There is a discussion above concerning specific factual disputes. I don't want to discuss the validity of such disputes here. However, I would like to discuss, with simple statements of support or opposition, do you support the removal of the Accuracy Tag?

• Support - Fact tags can be placed on specific issues or on a specific section, if that section is highly problematic. The examples raised so far have generally not been supported by reliable sources, and the disputed claims are.LedRush (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - So far, no real case has been made (the user thinks they have) and they have stated above that it will have to remain an ongoing dispute (as they haven't gotten their way (my words)) in what appears to be a hijacking with a veiled threat that a tag must remain just because one user thinks so. No one has supported their claims so far and there are no egregious errors in the article.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any real case for it to be there. I think major edits to the article should be put on hold until after the appeal. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have identified five or more accuracy issues in the article. I always explain my changes on the talk page beforehand. If no objection then I make a change. When the change is reverted (it typically is) I discuss the issue on the talk page and try to find a solution. The dispute tag is appropriate until such issues are resolved. It does look like the controversy issue is going to arbitration. As for LedRush's comment, it is a lie that my changes have generally not been supported by RS; since I've been here it seems like that's your go-to line when you're tired of collaboration. As for Berean, you are the one I'm talking about when I say some editors just swoop in spoiling for a fight. And if that's failing to assume good-faith, well, look in the mirror buddy. As for CodyJoeBibby, I agree with you that big changes are problematic now, but we disagree as to what constitutes as major edit. I changed two statements last night, per discussion, and decided to make a good faith neutral copy edit while I was there. If people would prefer that I stick to the facts in this factual dispute I will do that. Brmull (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're accusations are unfounded. I do not see LedRush lying and where have I not assumed good faith? Making accusations without backing them up is uncivil.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with your edits is that 1) The sources don't support them, and 2) You seem to me at times to be rewording things to insinuate meanings by innuendo to get around the fact that the sources don't support what you want to say. That's pretty much how much of the article was written a few months ago, and I don't think it's acceptable. Let's say you ask me what i did on Monday night, and I say: "I hung out with John for the night. Me and John watched the game on TV, went to the pub for a couple of pints, and got a kebab." You want to write that as something like "Cody said that he had watched a game with John and gone for a pint. He did not mention whether Peter was with him or not." CodyJoeBibby (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than citing a hypothetical example could you cite a real one? In this accuracy dispute I have been identifying facts that are (1) not in the existing source, or (2) in the existing source but contradicted by other, what I feel to be more reliable sources. I get a quick revert, usually saying that the changes I want are not supported by the source, but perhaps you are not looking at the second source. I am very careful, especially in the last few days given all the acrimony, to make sure my changes are supported. Brmull (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest this conversation be continued in the thread above? I would like to keep this discussion on topic and not scare away other editors from commenting because they don't want to read walls of text.LedRush (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Brmull is currently blocked for edit-warring so the tag may be taken down. His claim that 3RR doesn't apply to tags is obviously false.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support removing the tag. Disputes about specific statements should tag the statement (or the section) rather than the whole article. Glrx (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I believe there is a consensus to remove the article tag, so I will remove it. Furthermore, in this edit, Brmull stated he would use a more specific tag (at least he would use section rather than article tags). Glrx (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment pending dispute resolution

This dispute centers on a statement in the lede of the MoMK article that I and some other editors don't believe is properly sourced or NPOV. The paragraph in question is:

The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions, coverage in the news media and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor.

The first sentence is unsourced, and the word "much" is subjective. However, the major problem is the second sentence. The word "It" suggests that the entirety of the case is controversial which is untrue. The phrase "widely described as controversial" exists in no source; it is a subjective assessment by editors based largely on U.S. media coverage. In my view it is WP:WEASEL, not least because the sentence goes on to list four "questionable" areas which just happen to be defence talking-points. It's a lawyerly way of saying, "Almost everyone thinks the defendants are being railroaded."

Other editors have made comments about the problematic nature of this paragraph. I would like to replace the original paragraph with the following sourced text:

The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States, and aspects of the case are controversial.

I've not been able to work with the three who are reverting the article most of the time. I believe it's important to get this right because it is the lede in a highly-trafficked article and in a sense it sets the editorial standard for the whole page. I'm hoping for a range of views to facilitate the mediation/arbitration process. Thanks! Brmull (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually think that to be neutral the lede should say something more like:

The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States,. Coverage of the case is polarized between the view that the prosecution and conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been unjust [add reference to Dempsey, Egan or other pro-defense source], and the view that the trials were conducted fairly [cite John Follain, Barbie Latza Nadeau or other non-defense source]. The conviction of Rudy Guede has not generated similar controversy.

I agree that the current lead appears to violate NPOV. Grebe39 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We currently have an extremely well sourced and highly negotiated lede. The proposal ignores the controversial nature of case. Because I have shown about 15 articles which describe the case as controversial, I don't think we should have to have the qualifiers that the case is described as controversial. I think we should merely state that the case is controversial. Even the most pro-guilt editors long ago ceded that fact, and the current disruptive behavior does nothing to convince me that dozens of sources and editors here are wrong.LedRush (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For those who've come late, and to ease discussion on those 15 sources, could they be listed below please? If they each get their own bullet point, than we can discuss them one-at-a-time to see what we get. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from above: "This discussion (and one below it) (archived discussion) have about 15 sources for calling the case controversial. This has been gone over so many times I can't believe we still need this conversation. Though we don't need to per WP policy, should we just take 3-5 sources and jam them after the word controversy in the lede? It looks ugly, but it seems the only way to stop this silly argument from cropping up again.

More copied from stuff on this very page: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=amanda+knox+controversial+trials&cp=33&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0n&aqi=q-n1&aql=&oq=%22Amanda+Knox%22+controversial+trial&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4b0b76f839a314b5&biw=1024&bih=531

More from above in the endless conversations about things long ago proven beyond any doubt: "This one explicitly describes the trial as controversial, and it seems like a fairly reliable source. If we can find some more, then I can add them in."

LedRush (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone disagrees that US sources regard it (all of it) as controversial. But that is less true, even untrue elsewhere, where only specific aspects are regarded as questionable. --Red King (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That may have been true 9 months ago, but certainly not now. Italian and British newspapers have become more critical of the case, and the tabloids in those respective countries can be even more critical than US papers (probably because the US doesn't have those types of tabloids). Please see Oggi or The Sun for particularly scathing criticisms of the trial.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And regardless, that doesn't really have direct bearing on the trial as "controversial". Even if everything was kosher in the investigation and the trial, the case has stirred much controversy, as reported in numerous RSs.LedRush (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

brmull is now posting on the anti-Knox hate site truejustice.org. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well you guys won't let me contribute here, so I've been posting on a lot of sites, including pro-Knox sites. Brmull (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A mediator is now available to hear arguments from the parties to this dispute. Brmull (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that mediation is still on-going regarding the last paragraph of the lede and anyone is welcome to weigh in over at MedCab. The latest compromise which I put forward is:

The case has received international media coverage, particularly in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Media controversies include the appropriateness of Sollecito's and Knox's convictions, the conduct of the prosecutor and the police investigation, involvement in the case by politicians, and violations or alleged violations of Italian defamation laws, among other things.

Brmull (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not imply that your fellow editor is careless

• Here is the sentence I tagged: "Apart from the knife, there was no forensic evidence directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom in which Kercher was murdered." And here is the statement from Alex Wade on which this sentence is apparently based: "For just as indisputable as Kercher’s dead body, found with her throat cut in her bedroom, is the fact that there is not one iota of physical evidence placing Knox at the crime scene. Niente, nada, nihil."

As I said in my edit note at the time: Physical evidence is not equal to forensic evidence. Physical evidence + Biological evidence = Forensic evidence. Similarly bedroom is not the same as crime scene. The editor who added the cite made an assumption that Wade meant "bedroom". But everywhere else in his piece he uses the phrase "crime scene" to mean the cottage. Editors cannot make those kinds of assumptions to correct an erroneous source. Finally the word "directly" is not in the source and is unnecessary and confusing. Direct and forensic evidence are two different things.

• 2) Here is the other sentence I tagged: "The defence stated that, despite having put forward several different theories, the prosecution had produced no convincing evidence of a motive for murder."

As was suggested, I looked at the title of the BBC article: "Amanda Knox 'had no motive for Kercher murder'". It does not say "the prosecution had produced no convincing evidence of a motive for murder." As was suggested, I checked the first sentence of the article: "Amanda Knox did not have any motive for killing British student Meredith Kercher, her lawyer has told a court." It does not say "the prosecution had produced no convincing evidence of a motive for murder." As was suggested I searched the article for the word "evidence". The only relevant finding is this: "But Mr Dalla Vedova contended no evidence had been presented to show Miss Knox, Mr Sollecito and Guede had planned an attack on Miss Kercher." That is not the same as "the prosecution had produced no convincing evidence of a motive for murder."

Brmull (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead - removing/changing sources

Just undid undid an edit that removed sources from the viewed as innocent and viewed as guilty summary in the lead.

First off, all sources were removed from the innocent view part of the sentence, which is pretty strange. Seems like one of the controversy deniers would just comes along later and try to remove mention of that at all by claiming no sources were provided.

There was also a complaint saying that using books as sources that some people say innocent or guilty is somehow synthesis and against WP:OR rules, which makes no sense. If that view were valid, then no source could be used anywhere, as anyone could come along say it is only synthesis that it means what it says. Besides which, both Dempsey and Nadeau's books are pretty unambiguously on the innocent or guilty side of things respectively, as described by the books themselves, the marketing material for them, and the press coverage of each. Trying to hide an author's clearly stated view from readers is highly questionable conduct. Even if there were any rhyme or reason to that line of argument, that's clearly not an excuse to remove the Idaho Innocence Project cite. You can't get a more clear cut source for the view that they are innocent than that. DreamGuy (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this points out issues with the new wording that didn't exist with the old. We've sacrificed a very clear, well sourced statement of why the case was controversial for a mushy concept that some people support the conviction while others don't. The former focuses on the case/controversy, the latter on people's view of it. I really wish we would have discussed this more before changing the lead in such a manner to soft sell the controversy and less accurately reflect what the article itself says.

Regardless of that, I don't think we need the cites in the lead (if they are already in the text) but that they should remain there as DreamGuy is right: people always come after the fact asking to prove things that are self evident. Also, unless the source explicitly says that the author (or a group of people) say that someone holds a view, we shouldn't say they do. But surely these books explain that some people hold each of the views we say they do in the lead, don't they? I can't imagine writing a book (either pro-guilt or pro-innocence or neutral) without addressing that issue.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this Vogt article because it explicitly states:

public opinion is dividing into two distinct camps: the "innocentisti e colpevolisti" or "Innocents and the Guilties". On the one hand there are the vocal, media-savvy friends and supporters of Ms Knox, completely convinced of her innocence, who say the case is plagued by shoddy police work and a controversial prosecutor. Others say the evidence is damning and criticise blind support of the pretty, all-American girl when the true victim is Ms Kercher.

There was no intent to remove sourcing from one side or the other. As for the books, for those of us who haven't read either one, could we provide a page number where it is said Knox and Sollecito are innocent or properly convicted? The way it stands it's a bit like saying, "Opinion is divided between those who think God favors Christians(Ref: The Bible) and those who think He favors Muslims(Ref: The Quran)." Brmull (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Say what?

Just saw http://news.yahoo.com/shocking-evidence-amanda-knox-murder-case-may-lead-200805169.html - make of it what you will. Wnt (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson's blog repeats the claims of an Italian tabloid. What I make of that is...not much. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Forensic Police couldn't be bothered to collect the blue adidas jacket pulled off of Meredith Kercher by her killer as evidence is what I make of it. The jacket was near Meredith's body by the wardrobe when first photographed. Instead of bagging it as evidence they tossed it in her laundry hamper, which it was pulled out of on Dec 18, 2007.Issymo (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Time of Death based on Stomach Contents to be Part of Appeal

I recommended a few weeks ago adding the fact to the appeals section that the defense will be arguing an earlier time of death based on the stomach contents. Briefly, since there was no transit of stomach contents from the stomach, and since the outer limit of time to emptying in normal circumstances is 3 hours, and since the last meal was at 6 or 6:30, that the defense was arguing a time of death of before 10 pm. At the time the only source was the primary appeal document from the attorneys of Sollecito. There is now a news source reporting this here. Dougbremner (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So now we wait and let them present this in court and let other sources report it. Since we are not the news, this report has no bearing on the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the meaning of your "we are not the news" statement? Your link went to something about "soft redirects". Please tell me why the following should not be added to the appeal section: "The Knox and Sollecito defense team have added to their appeal that they will argue for a time of death of the victim of before 10 pm based on the forensic evidence. Secondary news source link is here. Dougbremner (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, someone has recently re-routed the WP:NOTNEWS link. The link to follow is now WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. While on the same page, it may also be worthy to take note of WP:CRYSTAL which also applies here. Instead of announcing things that are (likely) going to happen, we wait for them to occur and then depending on its impact and significance, we may give proper treatment within the article. Wikipedia isn't trying to be a newspaper and we steer away from blow-by-blow accounts. We need to let things proceed and see what comes of it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sollecito lawyer Maori presented it in court today and it was reported in the Umbria papers here. Dougbremner (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have requested comment on RS/N regarding "The Neverending Nightmare of Amanda Knox"

Discuss here. I have concerns that this semi-fictionalized account is a sole source for several dubious statements in the article. Brmull (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Change to lead

I have to agree with Grebe39 above. We need to be specific in the lead about what the controversy is to accurately summarize the article. It's absurd that up until now the article hasn't mentioned that there is a group of people who consider Knox and Sollecito to be innocent. Vague mentions of controversy and saying the conviction was appealed doesn't get to the point that is the whole reason for most of the news coverage. I think it's clear that some editors on this article are so caught up in their own personal views that they do not get that Wikipedia needs to reflect the real world coverage and expert views while summarizing the facts. I think the lead could probably stand to include something directly stating that the forensic evidence is disputed by multiple sources, as that is what the thrust of coverage has been about.

As far as the actual sources I cited in the lead, feel free to add more and better examples. Certainly there's no end of cites to choose from discussing the news coverage and the two views of the verdicts. DreamGuy (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Think your version is okay, except "The coverage has been criticised as being largely tabloid in nature". This doesn't appear to be supported by the source which just mentions "the delight of the European tabloid press" . --FormerIP (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We have many, many specific citations to controversy, and many citations to what aspects are controversial. This reflects how the article is currently constituted.LedRush (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of October when Amanda and Raffaele are back home with their families, I wonder if some will still come here and argue that there was no controversy. BruceFisher (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably depends on October of which year they get home. Ravensfire (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously since I've been arguing this very point since the first time I read the article, I think the language of DreamGuy and FormerIP is a thousand times better. The fact that some people are so wedded to the previous wording to me is prima faciae evidence that it was not NPOV. Brmull (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In general I prefer Brmull's version, but I think it needs to spell out a bit more about the nature beyond "miscarriage of justice". At a minimum, it needs to mention the problems that have been raised about the investigation and the forensic work. I do like the mention of Guede as it highlights the extreme focus on two of the three defendants from early on. Ravensfire (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly there are countless versions that would satisfy me. What I cannot accept is editors who refuse to negotiate at all. If that continues to be the case I will be requesting the arbitration committee take a look at those editors. Brmull (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making veiled threats and accusations. If you'd like to bring up my conduct to any body, please do. Until you excercise more care in your edits and ideas and begin to work with an understanding that others have different ideas than you, you'll have a hard time on Wikipedia, especially on a contentious article like this one.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe I am not following the discussion (and it looks like people are referring to old fights or something, whatever), but it looks like nobody here as any problem with my edit in general (except in specific, and even there the one part that was raised as problematic has been supported by more than one editor - there are lots of cites about the tabloid coverage complaints, they were in the article the whole time and the lead is supposed to summarize the article). So I do not understand the revert back to a version nobody seems to like. Instead of just generically saying it's been called controversial (weasel words at best, clearly it's controversial, or else nobody would even be talking about it) we need to say WHY so people reading the lead get that lots of people think 2 of the 3 defendants are innocent. Hell, the prosecutors this week even said they think Knox and Sollecito will be let free, and Wikipedia still seems to be reluctant to mention with any concrete language the entire reason this has been in the news for last several years. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted again. Your proposal, to my knowledge, has not been listed here. You've had a couple of people find specific issues with it and a couple people generally in favor of the language. The old language was the result of much compromise and is clearly sourced. Of course, consensus can change. I'd just like to keep the old consensus intact before making the change. Would you mind putting your proposed text here to discuss it in detail?

On your reasoning, to me, the new language soft-sells the controversy and doesn't represent the views of the article as well as the current. I am surprised because, by your comments above, it seems like you think the opposite is true...is that right?LedRush (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it DreamGuy's edit including FormerIP's ce is not only an acceptable but also article improving edit. I think the original was ok but the recent change (before revertions) is a better choice to introduce the controversial to the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I too prefer the newer version, as more direct and succinct. Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The trials have been the subject of news reports around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States. The coverage has been criticised as being largely tabloid in nature. Reactions to the case are polarized between the view that Knox and Sollecito are innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice and the view that Knox and Sollecito were directly involved in Kercher's murder and convicted fairly. The conviction of Rudy Guede has not generated similar controversy.

The above is DreamGuy's edit. I took out the cites since statements in the lede should be supported by cites in the body. Brmull (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good summary to me, I like it. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding cites in the lead, while ideally the lead should not have or require cites because they should all be in the body, frequently on controversial articles people will challenge sentences they do not like unless they are sourced and ignore that they are very well sourced later in the article. We have had this happen here, with people claiming there was no citation proving controversy or no citation saying people criticized the news coverage as tabloid, or what have you. Simply to silence those people and prevent edit warring it makes sense to leave the cites in the lead. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Soft-sells the controversy

I'm breaking this down into a subsection since this seems to be the only major point of contention, and I admit I am puzzled by it. "On your reasoning, to me, the new language soft-sells the controversy and doesn't represent the views of the article as well as the current." I am certainly not in favor of downplaying the controversy. I think the controversy needs to be made explicit to accurately cover this material for the article in a fair and complete way. I don't think, however, that simply saying it's controversial without saying why helps at all. It's empty verbiage. We should not simply throw a label of controversial on it (especially as some seem to want to dispute it), we need to say what the controversial parts are, so readers know and can see and judge for themselves. It looks like people from both sides of the controversy support this new wording. I think that's because it simply states the facts. If both sides agree to it, then it's a better point to progress from to improve upon through discussion and editing.

What, exactly, do you think needs to be changed so as to not, in your view, soft-sell the controversy? I think the new wording succinctly covers the major points. The only potential difference that I can see if that the new version doesn't mention controversy over the police conduct directly. I think that is kind of wrapped up in the miscarriage of justice idea. Perhaps some wording can be added to bring it back. Maybe a mention of the highly disputed forensics is necessary, but that wasn't in the old version either. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the nice things about the new version is it doesn't try to pick which controversies are notable. Let's try not to go back down that rabbit hole. Brmull (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't much of a rabbit hole. All the lead does is summarize things already in the article. We devote much time in the article to each of the categories of controversy so it should be relatively uncontroversial to keep the current categories. Also, I don't know that anyone is disputing that the case has been controversial, especially not after we pulled out over a dozen RSs which call it so and the other sources which point to specific aspects of the case being controversial.

I think the existing language already does what you (DreamGuy) say you want to do. It mentions the controversy and brings up specific areas of question. The new language seems to focus on the reactions of pro-guilt and pro-innocence people, rather than the coverage of the controversy as depicted in RSs. Perhaps we can insert the why people think there has been a miscarriage of justice (the aspects of the case we currently discuss), but that changes the meaning of the lead slightly, doesn't it?LedRush (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference "When a friend arrived at Sollecito's flat around 8:40 pm, Knox answered the door.[26]" does not support the statement. It (the statement) is therefore false and please be deleted (unless supported by other references). chami 15:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)

The Vision Thing

I don't know why ABC News has decided to refer to Knox's implication of Lumumba as a "vision". Previously this is something that only Knox supporters did. It is false: the actual signed statements are available online in Italian (here and here) and English (here and here). Neither the word "vision" nor its Italian equivalents are mentioned anywhere. In any case, this is all ABC News claims:

During the nearly 50 hours of her interrogation, Knox implicated Lumumba in Kercher's death, telling police she had a "vision" that Lumumba was present. Knox tried to retract her statement in the morning, saying the police had confused her with their extended grilling and tough tactics and their insistence that Lumumba was involved because they found a text message Knox had sent to Lumumba hours before Kercher was killed. Italy's Supreme Court threw out her "vision" statement.

The MoMK article was incorrect in saying that Knox signed a statement in Italian that she had a vision. This is why I reverted it to the previous version. Brmull (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let's make the reference about what she said and not about what she signed.LedRush (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, we listen to reliable secondary sources more than primary sources for several reasons. Your original research to disprove the statements of a RS aren't overly convincing to me with regards to the core issue: Knox has maintained that she told the police about a vision she had when they asked her to imagine what happened. Presenting only one side of this story seems like a NPOV issue.LedRush (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, primary sources are perfectly acceptable for statements of fact. Otherwise large chunks of this article would go out the window because it's based on the Micheli and Massei reports--and I assume eventually the Hellman report. In any case, Knox's statements are reprinted in secondary RS if that remains a sticking point. None of this is "original research" it's just good research. If you think it's important to say that Knox has maintained that she had a vision, and you have a source for that, I have no problem--as long as Knox's police statement is also quoted to show exactly what she signed.Brmull (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For statement's of fact, yes. But seeing as there are divergent views on what was said, this situation doesn't seem to fit, does it. Regardless, you seem to accept the use of the source now, as long as it is not used to the exclusion of the existing language.LedRush (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet another source saying Knox merely told police she had a "vision" of Lumumba. [12]LedRush (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see rye bread popping up more in the media.[13]LedRush (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to bring self-described know-nothing Katie Crouch into this. The bread theory is worthy of a mention however, versus the prosecution's suggestion that it might be from powdered gloves. If the article is reorganized it might not be a bad idea to give the knife its own subsection, as it's probably the most controversial piece of evidence. Brmull (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Source on media portrayals in the US, UK, and Italy

I found:

• Burleigh, Nina. "Why There Will Always Be Three Amanda Knoxes." TIME. Friday 30 September 2011.

It talks about the differences in portrayals in the media in the US, Italy, and the UK WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Separate article for Amanda Knox if set free

I think we should atleast seriously consider a separate Amanda Knox article if she is set free on Monday after the appeal verdict. Which is likely to have that particular outcome as it seems. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As WP:BEINGSETFREE is not a valid criteria for an article, no, such a thing will not be happening just because her prisoner status may change. Recall that Casey Anthony is still, and will remain, a redirect. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. WP:CRIME means we should actually be more cautious, not less, in the event that Knox gets her freedom. "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". For now, though, this is very much a hypothetical question. --FormerIP (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see your points, even if/when Knox is acquitted their will be appeals from which ever side "wins" tomorrow.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer is yes--eventually. But given the legal considerations, what would this article contain that would be useful and NPOV? Brmull (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No use getting bogged down in this now, but if you read the policy on one event, it seems pretty clear to me that she should already have her own article, just like the dozens of others in similar situations. The question is whether certain editors here will put aside their personal opinions and follow the policy and precedents of Wikipedia.

Of course, I know that several editors on this article have said that an acquittal would change their opinion. While I don't think there's a policy argument to be made there, an acquittal just strengthens the two factors that already make wp:oneevent not applicable - it strengthens the borderline argument that she isn't notable for one event and it reinforces the undeniable fact that she isn't a low-profile individual.LedRush (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, with all the articles popping up about Mignini [14], it may be time for an article on him, too[15].LedRush (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus Giulia Bongiorno already has an article in Italian WP that could be easily ported over. Brmull (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic. One event says "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". And the example given of a highly significant event is the assassination of a political leader (ie a notable person). Murder of a non-notable person doesn't strike me as being in the same area. Secondly an acquittal does not make her notable for more than one event - it's still the same event; the trial is not separate from the murder. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed my point of view. I think Amanda Knox should have her separate article. She has reached notability way beyond any of the notability criterias. Thats it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

CHANGE OF ARTICLE NAME NECESSARY

The name of this article is not correct, as any honest person knows that this whole case surrounded AMANDA KNOX, and her trial for murder and sexual assault. Amanda Knox's name should be in the article name, period. This is not even really debatable, even if she wasn't acquitted. But especially now that she has been. "Murder of Meredith Kercher" is not really the searched for name, when someone does a search, and everyone knows that. I propose either a new name or a new article, called "Amanda Knox murder trial". Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox needs her own article. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why a separate article. This entire story has had too much coverage already. A murderer has been set free. Get over it.

Prosecutor asks jury to convict even if they think Knox is innocent

See here:

In a similar vein, I saw an article about the Knox appeal the other day in which Mignini made an argument that I think would get him thrown out of court in the US. Essentially, his argument was that if Knox wins her appeal, he will appeal to the next highest court. But she will obviously leave Italy and never come back if she wins her appeal now. So, he argued, find her guilty again, even if you think she's innocent, so this can go to the higher court. Perplexing, to say the least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Count Iblis (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I corrected your link. As for Jimbo's words, it would be nice to see the source for his post.TMCk (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I read a similar article (or the same one). I'm not sure it's worth tracking down unless we know we'd want to put it in this article.LedRush (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We won't know if it's useful for the article unless we have the actual source presented that backs up what was said and maybe more. W/o source this thread is nothing but a forum entry of personal opinions.TMCk (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's completely not true, but whatever.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? What exactly is "completely not true"? Do you mean the forum thing? If so, please explain how this thread is helping in improving the article while no source is present.TMCk (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We have Jimbo's statement on his talk page as a reliable tertiary source, we should be able to find a good secondary source... Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean that you can talk about something in general without knowing the specifics. If we found a source that said what he said, what would we do with it? Until we know that answer, it doesn't seem to make sense to start wading through the thousands of articles in the subject to find it. Of course the specifics can change what precisely we'd do with it (and possibly using it at all). But even if it was 100% verifiable and people were opposed to it for whatever reason, why waste the time?LedRush (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. So instead of posting the source we purge "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." from this talkpage then?TMCk (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread what I wrote, try not to be disruptive, and engage in a constructive conversations.LedRush (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto (only that it makes sense when I say it). Why don't you just try to find the article you've read and share it with us? It should be easier for you than for those who didn't have a peek at it before. Do we need to ask Jimbo who didn't post here?TMCk (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing...I wouldn't put this in this article (it seems argumentative, to me). I don't want to wade through an ocean of crap just to find others agree with my position.LedRush (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Assualt?

I just want to confirm, Knox is being charged with sexual assault? Is there any evidence of this, I didnt see anything in the article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of stuff/information missing

I came to this article to learn/read about what I just heard on TV, how Amanda Knox first told police that she was in another room and held her hands over her ears because he hated hearing Kercher's screams. But then apparently, Knox changed her story. That is what Sky TV said. I think I have heard this before. So I came here to learn more about the changes in her stories, but nothing about this in this article for some reason. I don't know enough about the subject to insert the info.Betathetapi545 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Hipocrite (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the Amanda Knox case very well at all - but even I had heard of this "hands over her ears" comment before, so I didn't think it was necessary to go to the trouble of coming up with a citation of something that is so well known - not to mention that this is a Discussion page. Instead of just popping in and saying "Citation needed", why don't you just Google "Amanda Knox hands over her ears" and you will get dozens and dozens of hits from major news organisations. I'm not going to bother to document the obvious on a Discussion page.Betathetapi545 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to MoMK ,Betathetapi545. All the news that fits the agenda. Brmull (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

knox and Sollecito not guilty of murder

...Amanda Knox found guilty of slander of police - three years in jail - already served four so immediate release to pay appeals 22,000 euros - immediate release , also of Rafael Sollecito , immediate release. Not guilty of murder charge. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What was the basis for the slander of police charge? Since it's not particularly relevant to this article, is it time to create Amanda Knox as something other than a redirect? Dualus (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. She should have her own article. Anders Behring Breivik has one and he is only known for a bomb and an attack on a youth camp. As for the slander charge; She was just as pressured to implicate him as she was forced to be victim in the prosecutors marketing plan Covergaard (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Slander of police was accusing them of assault, she accused them of slapping her twice. I don't think its a good idea to create an article about her at this time , she is still only basically a one event private person. - other may disagree... she has a lot of note in press reports but imo only to do with this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't see how this acquittal should strengthen the case for a separate article rather than weaken it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, being famous because of a crime association is not a valid criteria for an article, see Casey Anthony. The title of this article seems to get forgotten in all these raging advocacy debates, but Meredith Kercher is still dead and there is still someone or several someones out there that murdered her. This article should be steered back towards the murder and less on the Knox-cheerleading now that she has been acquitted. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

When we host articles about pepper spraying policemen - Knox is super notable compared to millions of articles currently hosted here at en wikiperdia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think Amanda Knox should have her own article. She has reached notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with FP and Tarc - as with Casey Anthony, Knox doesn't rate a separate article per WP:BLP1E unless she assumes a public profile in the future that would warrant one. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E doesn't prevent a separate article because she's not only famous for one event and she's not a low profile individual.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

She is an internationally notable high profile person that many many people want to know about - she is not some new york copper with a pepper spray. - rescue rescueOff2riorob (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• - I think this needs to move from here to Talk:Amanda_Knox and a WP:RFC to see where consensus lies now. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a reason to rush this. She hasn't had an article for four years, another month won't hurt wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Ground Rules - (let's take it slow)

I don't suppose we could agree to making only minor changes in the lede and the appeals sections, and then discussing larger scale changes before implementing them. The article may need to undergo massive changes, but not necessarily. I think it's best to discuss first. After today's verdict is incorporated into the article, of course.LedRush (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize with your intent, but I would be surprised if the article isn't soon going to be peppered with sweeping statements about how "her acquittal exposed the previous trial as a grave miscarriage and Italian police work as a farce", about her case encouraging others to fight the sodden Italian judicial system, and about her courage, endurance in jail and rethorical powers when she finally spoke to the jury (personally, I found her address quite lame and nowhere near up to the occasion). All of those statements could easily be supported with source notes to various U.S. magazines, newspaper columnists and bloggers and judicial "experts" who have jumped on the bandwagon, and claimed as unchallengeable because they have been published or quoted by serious newspapers, stated by academics on talkshows and so on. Mmm, yes.Strausszek (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Automatic level of compensation

Being reported as a half a million euros automatic payment to Knox and Sollicito. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Compensation for what? She committed a murder, spends four years in prison is then released on a technicality - and her conviction for defamation (three year sentence) was upheld. As she was held for a year pending trial, and then served a three year defamation sentence, she cannot argue wrongful imprisonment. Don't worry, she is going to make millions of dollars out of killing Meredith anyway.

More sources

• Burleigh, Nina. "The scapegoating of Amanda Knox." (editorial). Los Angeles Times. October 4, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Editorial. I've read many that still hold that she's guilty (which I agree with, but that's just my opinion.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's an editorial (I labeled it as such). Editorials are okay to cite when discussing opinions, but not when discussing facts. Since a portion of this article should discuss opinions related to the case, this article should help with that aspect :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it's useful as a cite for opinions about the case, not for facts. I'd add (as my personal take here) that the writer of that piece is typical on another count too: she's stating that Knox was really condemned for her sexiness, her Americanness, her fresh uninhibited style, and strongly insinuates that it's typically Italian (murky catholicism?) to jump on foxy women, but avoids owning up that the things she's accusing Italian courts and media of - hypocrisy, character smear, sexism, irrelevant personal aspects of the defendant brought into the case, sloppy forensics - happen in U.S. courts and media as well, and especially when there is some connection to sex or implied treachery. And those cases most often don't make near the headlines the Kercher/Knox case has made.

I remember seeing a documentary, about a year ago - the airing date in America would have been earlier, no need to ask "what series and episode was it?" - on a case where a southern U.S. woman, married to a military officer, was charged with murder some time after he had suddenly died. The prosecutor painted an emotional picture of her as a cheap and treacherous gold digger who had deliberately poisoned hubby after several years of marriage, inciting a sudden heart failure or the like (the guy already had a mild medical condition), in order to get the milo widow pension and the insurance. The evidence was mostly circumstantial - details about changes *he* had made in his life insurance, supposedly at her instigation, and so on, plus her 'unreliable' and shopping-happy character which was really back-written into the case by the prosecutor. Vitally, there was not even any conclusive evidence he had died from unnatural causes, but this didn't stop the prosecutor or the police. The main piece of hard technical evidence consisted of dna from the woman on - a medical tube or package I think. She was convicted in the first round and sentenced to life in prison, in another state she might have been sentenced to death. As I recall it, everything was upheld at first appeals which was a rather quick affair, and during which she was openly insulted and denigrated in the courtroom by the prosecutor.

Getting a second appeals process going had not been easy, but finally she managed to find a new and better lawyer (and to take up loans to pay him and the expenses of countering the evidence: she was not being offered help with getting such loans by the state, no sir, and refused by most banks). The new lawyer finally managed to show, conclusively, that samples of dna had gotten mixed up at the lab. Unlike in the Knox case it wasn't "it's just possible they got contaminated" but a definite inquiry and admission that they had been confused. So the case was uncomfortably parallel to Knox, but she had had to fight this without a hefty media campaign, and being somewhat obstructed and smeared for being "oh that treacherous woman" by U.S. prosecutors, jurors and journalists.

This all happened within the 00s decade, in the US. Something tells me that woman will never get anywhere near the attention and adulation Knox is getting, nor will she be seen as a "typical American girl".Strausszek (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 3#Amanda Knox

Just to make sure everyone knows. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox is the notable one

Many, many people are murdered every day, both in western countries and in the third world. A murder in itself is not notable. It is the attention surrounding Amanda Knox, viz. the person of Amanda Knox, which/who makes the case notable. The article title should reflect that. The reason this case still makes the headlines (and films and books, all about Amanda Knox) is Knox and her trial, not the fact that a British citizen died in Italy four years ago. A more appropriate title could be:

• Miscarriage of justice against Amanda Knox
• Amanda Knox affair/trial
• Trial of Amanda Knox as suggested above sounds good.

Mocctur (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I like the first one personally, but anything that expunges the name Meredith Kercher from the pages of Wikipedia sounds good to me. Brmull (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The fact that Knox has become notable, and some sort of celebrity, at least in America, is the consequence of the media campaign mounted (pushed and to some extent financed) by her clan. Renaming the article "Trial of Amanda Knox" would steer it further towards centering exclusively on her part of the story, sensationalizing it and encouraging POV'd material (yeah It can be POV and hyperbolic even if it's pipelined from newspapers, popular comment and tv) about how intolerably she has been abused by the Italians.Strausszek (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox mounted a media campaign for the Italian and British press to make her a huge celebrity and publish prurient details about her life, including numerous false and lurid details concerning sex, violence and drug use? That's so weird? Why would she do that?LedRush (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not that kind of campaign - and don't put words in my mouth okay? Knox's family (which has vast resources and good media connections, enough dough to keep the case in the public eye, help out with getting books and tv films initiated and make sure the story gained snowballing media attention on the lines they wanted, even enough money to fly in supporters from the states for yesterday's court session, as pointed out in passing by the BBC), her family presented it as a nice all-American girl trapped by bad cops, local misfits helping to set her up as a patsy and a scurrilous prosecutor hellbent on jailing her. Actually, the evidence seems to have been damning and I agree with the view that the forensic review of the DNA evidence was presented in a quite generic way by the researchers who did it. Yes, they stated it in a strong way, but their argument was really only about "there isn't quite enough DNA here now" (sorry, tiny specks of saliva, skin fragments or the like on a small item picked from a crime scene cannot be tested for DNA a quite indefinite number of times, any forensic doctor knows this!) and "it just might have been contaminated", while they never addressed: if it was, then is there some fashion or place that it's a bit credible to have been contaminated in?

Also, the case isn't as unique as it has been presented by supporters. Lurid sex-aligned killings and robberies are not ultra unusual, are they? And the kind of things the Knox camp accuse the Italians of carrying on with - substandard forensic work, bullying of suspects and arrestees, and prosecutors trying, for career reasons, to win a case by smearing the defendant for some sort of irrelevant "bad habits" - occur in American courts too, but of course acknowledging this wasn't part of the winning celeb scenario.Strausszek (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Twobells (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the reference for Knox's family having "vast resources" and "good media connections?" The prosecution (or Kercher family) attorney told the jury about the family having spent $1 million in public relations and having a private jet waiting to spirit Knox away. Whereas the $1 million figure relates to attorneys' fees and there is no private jet. Avocats (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Strausszek if you look at the article it's already a Knox hagiography and has been for about six months. With the acquittal it's only going to get worse. Might as well at least have a title that is representative of what's in the article. Brmull (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay Brmull, I get it; you're an American suburban ironic kid and really couldn't care less whether WP is a blog or an (at least sometimes) decent and evenhanded place of reference. Sorry I interrupted your daily watch of Beavis and Butthead! Strausszek (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your bigotry is showing, tone it down, and stop insulting fellow Wikipedians. Unigolyn (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Editors here should be advised that any return to soapboxing and ideological battleground behaviour will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) Given the attention Knox has recieved, there's nothing to stop us from splitting it into two articles (one for the murder of Meredith Kercher and one for Amanda Knox). An article on Knox would go into more detail on her trial and the appeals against it, while this article would be more focused on the murder itself and have a more general look on any of the accused murderers. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would argue WP:TOOSOON. This will either blow over and be forgotten when the next sensational story captures the public imagination, or Knox will use her publicity to launch a spin-off career, which may make her notable for reasons other than her association with this event. Shall we wait a little while and see how this unfolds...? Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it could be worthwhile to see how the dust settles before doing anything. If it helps, I have some sources from the BBC website that might be useful. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

The extant issues relating to an Amanda Knox article is that she really does not have anything notable about her except the trial. So it becomes a slag piece. Either that or a content fork with whatever spin wins the day. We have a bad history of spinning out articles which then compete against each other for the TRUTH... At the very least it will simply duplicate this article, which is pointless. I like Future Perfects suggestion; which is to stub Amanda Knox - limiting it to a couple of paragraphs. On top of that I suggest forking this to: Trial of Amanada Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - although this is not a perfect article title it would let us reduce the material here to the basics and rework things in a new article without major BLP concerns. Seeing as the pair are now acquitted that probably draws a line under the events enough to call it largely a conclusion to those trials. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate this article? Not at all. This article contains ridiculously and demonstratively little information about the single person who makes this case notable, namely Amanda Knox. I believe there are a few things to say about the subject of all these books (didn't count them, but two or three dozen?) and a film named for her. Mocctur (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of what Mocctur says above. Let's get with it people; Knox simply requires a separate entry moving forward. Spiculalinguae (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose any suggestion that the murder of this young woman is not notable, though Amanda Knox is indisputably verifiably notable (whether she likes it or not) and deserves a dedicated article — hence my deletion review (as an uninvolved editor who was surprised there was no dedicated biography). -- samj _in^out 00:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As an univolved editor I think you do not appreciate that this is a clear WP:IGNORE situation. This MoMK article contributes nothing of value, is the source of endless content disputes, and editors efforts would be far more productively spent elsewhere. Brmull (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The case as such is obviously notable at this point, but only because of the media coverage and mainly because of Amanda Knox who is the subject of dozens of books, a film etc etc. Murders are committed in Italy (and elsewhere) every day, but I don't see articles on them in Wikipedia. A murder in itself is not notable, so without the miscarriage of justice against Amanda Knox and resulting media coverage, this case would not necessarily be notable. Mocctur (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How many non-Knox sources do we currently have in the article? – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tribalism

This discussion is descending into Tribalism – where the supporters of side are tending to deliberately offensive to the other. Without the murder there would be no trial nor would any of these people be notable. The murder of Meredith Kercher is in itself notable and now unsolved and thus mysterious. Given the controversy separate articles for the murder & trial are probably the only solution. Even then I predict edit wars. It should be noted that just as Knox’s conviction did not convince some people of her guilt – so her acquittal will not convince some people of her innocence. Also I urge people to show comparison – this is about real people. People should exhibit care -- that families affected may well read this.Jalipa (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The murder is not unsolved. The police and courts had a solution. Thanks to media pressure and lots of American dollars two of the three convictions have been quashed. Don't forget one murderers conviction was upheld.

The murder is unsolved in that the police & courts maintain that the 47 wounds on Meredith's body were inflicted by more than one person. And only one person is jail for it. The other two have now been acquitted. Either aquittal was wrong or the other culprits have not been identified. Jalipa (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Or the police are wrong (which does happen, y'know). I have not read the verdict so I have no idea whether the court commented on whether their decision was based on believing the police incorrect in this regard. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Separate articles seems sensible. It's not an either or. This is not the place for speculation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform. And yes, the families' feelings are an issue.--Flexdream (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Defamation

I believe the use of the word "defamation" to describe the (still standing) conviction against Amanda Knox is misleading (although I realise the press uses this translation a lot). Her conviction of calunnia is not the equivalent of defamation, which is understood by most English speakers to be dealt with under civil law in their systems. By using the word defamation readers have the impression that the Italian legal system is criminally punishing her for something that the American/British system would deal with in a civil suit, which is not an accurate reflection of the conviction. Calunnia could be compared with "perverting the course of justice" in this case as Amanda Knox was accused (and convicted) of making the false accusations to deflect suspicion away from herself (even if she was subsequently found not guilty, this would not absolve her of the charge in Italy, the U.S. or the U.K.). I don't know much about the American legal system, but I suppose that the charge of filing a false police report is similar - though I understand that the way this crime is treated varies widely from state to state.

I would suggest amending the article to use the Italian term calunnia with a brief introductory explanation of its meaning.

Again, it is completely different from defamation (diffamazione in Italian, which is dealt with under a completely separate article in the Italian code.)

Some commentators also seem to be confusing the calunnia charge - this appeal dealt with the charge in relation to her accusations against Lumumba, not her accusations against the police (which are the subject of another trial). Connolly15 (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If we have sources to confirm your understanding, I think clarification is necessary.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Source (amongst any Italian media source which always use the natural word calunnia) for her conviction of calunnia is here (italian). Wikipedia.it gives a description of calunnia here (italian version). I'll have a look to see if there is anything in English which compares defamation to calunnia.Connolly15 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Edit: Amended link to Repubblica story Connolly15 (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The only English source I have been able to find so far is here on page 12 in the footnote where the author discusses calunnia. Would this be an appropriate source? (Connolly15 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

• Chatillon Stéphane. "Droit et langue". Revue internationale de droit comparé (in French). 54 (3): 714–715. doi:10.3406/ridc.2002.17804. Retrieved 4 Oct 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

In translation:

Italian law - The ingiuria and diffamazione constitute offenses against honor, calunnia and autocalunnia constitute offenses against the judiciary.
Ingiuria is a harm to the honor or dignity of a person present and constitutes a diffamazione to the reputation of a person missing.
In both cases, ingiuria and diffamazione, the penalty is increased when the damage is to assign a specific act.
One is guilty of calunnia "who, by information, complaint, request, even anonymously or under a false name, directly to the judicial authority or another authority is obliged to refer, someone accused of a crime which he knows innocent, or that simulates against him the traces of a crime

LeadSongDog come howl! 05:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think defamation or calumny is the least misleading short description. The judge reading the sentence confirming that conviction specifically said calunnia nei confronti di Lumumba Patrick or words to that effect. If it were "obstruction of justice" or "perverting the course of justice", Lumumba per se would not be the victim. She was convicted specifically for falsely accusing Lumumba (whether she actually accused Lumumba is a little unclear to me, but in any case that's what she was convicted of).

If someone wants to research and give a clear description of the technical distinction between calunnia and diffamazione, I have no objection to that. But glossing it as "obstruction" just doesn't work. --Trovatore (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Defining callunia as columny won't help most readers. How about defining it as "false accusation"? Brmull (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, isn't there some way to say this that would actually correlate to a western crime? Why not criminal defamation (seeing as it comports most closely to what RSs actually say)?LedRush (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"False accusation" seems about right. In my latest effort I just said what she was convicted of having done, rather than attempting to translate the technical legal term. --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't conclusively "prove" anything on here, necessarily, Trovo, but merely made a personal conclusion from what was written (in the conviction sentence). As was brought out by Connolly, the word "defamation" is not really the most accurate or clear, but leaves the notion to most readers that it's a civil offense, when "callunia" is more akin (in the Italian court context) to LYING TO CAUSE DECEPTION AND OBSTRUCTION. And the wording there, that you changed, did NOT only say "obstruction" but rather "LYING and obstruction". To make it clear how the "obstruction" was carried out. Not sure why you object to that so much. If it was "objection" alone, then maybe I could understand. But the word "lying" was there too. And it IS for the matter of misleading and obstructing. The term "defamation" doesn't really convey that precise thought very well. But it's whatever. I'm not gonna belabor this thing forever. It's just that WP should be clear and accurate. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be clear and accurate, and to gloss calunnia as "misleading and obstruction" is flat wrong. Calunnia is cognate with wikt:calumny and refers to a negative statement about an identifiable person. If she had lied about what happened but not indicated anyone in particular, that could still be "misleading and obstruction", but it would not be calunnia. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me a little bit. OK, so let me be clearer. I KNOW that it's a negative statement "about an identifiable person". That's a straw-man here to me, because I never argued against that and I was always aware of that. BUT...this is the point that you seem to be missing here. It's a negative statement or lie against a specific person FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBSTRUCTING INVESTIGATIONS AND JUSTICE...AND FOR MISLEADING THE POLICE AND COURTS.... It's a CRIMINAL offense, not just a "well you lied about me regarding why I got divorced" having nothing to do with criminal proceedings, or something like that. Italy has a different word and thing for that. So the point is that "defamation" (and I think you kinda agree a little bit in a way) is not the most clear or accurate rendering for "callunnia". Again, it IS "obstruction" as its overall purpose, in that Italian legal context, by lying about "an identifiable person." Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you call it "misleading and obstruction" without mentioning the specific kind, that's just wrong. Neither defamation nor obstruction is exactly right, but defamation is closer by a mile, because the point is that you might have caused the police to investigate a particular person. --Trovatore (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But again, the point is that it was for the PURPOSE of obstructing and mis-leading. Also, what you're not remembering is that it was NOT just "lying and obstruction" that was stated, but the very Italian word "calunni". Now maybe "lying against a person for obstruction" would have been more clear and thorough, true, but the overall point was there. Yes, against a person, no kidding, but NOT just for any old reason, because they don't like the person, but to steer law enforcement OFF COURSE...to obstruct. That vital point should not be obscured or lost. "Defamation" does say something, but not enough. But the "against a person" I agree should be made clear too. That it was not just "lying" in general, but against a person. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Two observations. First, "calunnia" is not an English word so some translation or explanation is absolutely required. Second, the cited source doesn't say she her conviction for calunnia was confirmed, it says her conviction for slander was confirmed. The article should reflect the cited source.Nstrauss (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point about "cited source", but remember "there are no rules on Wikipedia". Meaning that nothing is set in stone, and as Connolly said, the translation "defamation" is NOT really correct. And "callunnia" kinda means something else, and that's also sourced and confirmed elsewhere in the world. Wikipedia should also at least try to reflect what's accurate, NOT ONLY what is "cited". But I agree that it would be wise to find a source, that mentions "callunnia" in the more correct and precise sense, and put that as a ref. Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have provided a well known media source which confirms her conviction of "calunnia" was upheld: here (italian). If you need a source in English, that might require some searching around.(Connolly15 (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

"Amanda Knox è stata riconosciuta colpevole solo di calunnia - nei confonti di Patrick Lumumba - e condannata a 3 anni di reclusione, già scontati." = "Amanda Knox was found guilty only of calunnia - against Patrick Lumumba - and sentenced to 3 years in prison, already served." (Connolly15 (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

Can we get this exact?

One of her Italian flatmates had left town and Knox was at Sollecito's flat. The four Italian men who shared the downstairs flat had also left town.[5]:41

Does Dempsey actually say that they had "left town"? When this expression is used it implies that the person has "vamooshed", "cleared out", "shot through", "debunked", "absconded" or "done a runner", i.e. it implies suspicious circumstances, and that the person had gone permanently. Had these people "left town" or were they simply "out of town", i.e. travelling, visiting family or the like.

Some of the language used in this article carries implications that are incorrect. I have corrected the fact that the flat was not "unoccupied" i.e. "vacant". But I cannot correct this other wording if in fact the six residents had all gone permanently.

Amandajm (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

She just means they were out of town. I see no problems with it. They went home because of the 3 day weekend. Issymo (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Issymo, it really doesn't matter what "she means". What matters is the implication. Being "out of town" and "left town" carry entirely different implications. This is about a murder enquiry. The language needs to be exact and not imply something that is not the case. Amandajm (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete all false allegations as BLP violation

Under Italian law a 530.1 acquittal means that the entire case was fabricated out of whole cloth, that all the evidence was false. Knowingly repeating prosecution arguments that were proven in court to be false could be defamatory under U.S. law, and at the very least are inappropriate for Wikipedia BLPs. All prosecution statements about Knox and Sollecito should be removed. Brmull (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, making allusions to things being illegal walk dangerously close to making legal threats. I think it is clear you aren't making any legal threats, but I did just want to throw that out there. Secondly, I don't see how reporting on what others have reported on is illegal under any law. Otherwise all the journalists covering the case would be in jail. The accusations were made. That is verifiable fact. As for now, the allegations have been determined false by a court. That is also a verifiable fact. However, just because the court says it's true doesn't mean it is true. Just as when she was found guilty we included the defense arguments, we must include the prosecution arguments even when she is found innocent. Courts don't determine what is notable, what is true, or what we report on Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we are reporting what RS sources said in the past, which was true then to the best of anyone's knowledge, but which we now know is false. I am not aware of any similar 530.1 situation in Wikipedia, but WP:BLP tells us to avoid prolonging victimization, which exactly what we're doing by discussing these allegations in detail. There is a counter-example in Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. where the article repeats a libellous statement in full. I think a lot of editors would be uncomfortable with that, and this is certainly worse. Brmull (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't know it's false. We only know that a court in Italy said it was false. Who knows what the next court will say. And it doesn't matter...courts don't decide the truth.LedRush (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Brmull; I agree with tightening some of the material and reducing the speculation stuff - with an eye on the BLP aspect now they are acquitted. But we obviously can't remove it... --Errant ^(chat!) 12:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that they are acquitted (for now; there will likely be a further appeals trial) doesn't mean that the court has stated anything in the vein of "the case against Knox and Sollecito was a wholesale mockup, a deliberate fabrication", that it should have been thrown out at day one. The verdict says the evidence was judged insufficient and that the DNA traces may be due to contamination, not that anyone deliberately put them there. The Perugia court would have shown criminal laxity in its work if four years ago it had ignored the evidence and just said "Aaaah that girl Knox is so charming and so inocent! Can't be her."Strausszek (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. What you are describing is a 530.2 acquittal for insufficient evidence. A 530.1 acquittal says the charges were baseless. As to whether Wikipedia should continue to present evidence that a court has found baseless... I would like to know what "tightening up" as Errant recommends is going to fix this BLP issue? Is this going to become (even more of) a cruel article where the prosecution's case is relentlessly mocked? What about having some sensitivity to the family of that girl whose picture is at the top of the page. We should just describe the crime, talk about Guede's role, include a brief summary of the other verdicts, and be done with it. Brmull (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, if the court said the earlier charges had finally been found groundless, unfounded, that still doesn't mean it branded the earlier courtroom process as fraudulent ("fabricated of whole cloth" in your words) or marked by such gross incompetence as to be a criminal offence against Knox and her boyfriend - or that any part of the inquiry had been deliberately made up. That's just the spin of some journalists and editorialists; people have become heavily engaged in this and there was an obvious wish to grab the victory trophy and shout not just "Knox has been acquitted!" but "our story of *why* she was charged, sentenced and held in jail was the true one!". Without actual access to the text of the verdict (preferably with a good translation into English), or to statements explaining it from the judge, we shouldn't indulge in any ideas that they branded the earlier court as a pack of bandits or hypocrite smearers.

And I agree with LedRush that if it's illegal or useless to report on the actual allegations, accusations, circumstances and testimonies of a court case as these are told in the court, or by other news outlets - illegal and defamatory once some of those stories and statements have been dismissed - then all journalists who reported on this story, or on the marriage breakdown of Tiger Woods or the pedophilia charges against Michael Jackson, would be behind bars, together with their publishers and photographers. There was lots in that reporting, inside and outside of the courtrooms, that was later dismissed or likely plain old lies. This doesn't affect the right to report it. You're free to think the reporting was excessive and sometimes degrading, I certainly thought so about Woods, but it wasn't illegal. Nor is it illegal to restate it here, but it should be done without overuse of pathos and emotional wording.

And "What about having some sensitivity to the family of that girl whose picture is at the top of the page?" Hmm, I thought you posted a few days ago on this page that you'd prefer the article to be written, and titled, in such a way as to excise the name of Meredith Kercher (but not Aamanda Knox) from Wikipedia.Strausszek (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Puzzling forensic reference

In the course of reading this article I linked to the Reuters Articlereferenced above and noted a statement about Meredith Kercher in the Reuters piece which led me to re-read a relevant portion of this one:

Under 'Forensic evidence,'in Wikipedia it is stated:

"There were three cuts on her neck as well as bruises suggesting she might have been strangled."

But according to the Reuters account:

"Her half-naked body was found with over 40 wounds and a deep gash in the throat"

The contradiction in the two accounts seems indisputable. I'm not qualified to judge whether Wikipedia is obliged to account for it. (Of course if '40 wounds' has already been covered in previous Talk, I probably missed it.) JWMcCalvin (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a cite to hopefully resolve this confusion. Thanks. Brmull (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any contradiction here. The cuts and bruises to the neck constitute those particular injuries that suggest strangulation. This doesn't mean that other injuries were not present. Amandajm (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Separate article needed for Amanda Knox

She has been cleared of this horrible crime. It's unreasonable to redirect her name to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Countercouper (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lumumba is suing her for defamation on the grounds that she pointed him out as the killer at some length. That trial hasn't begun yet I think. And I wouldn't bet big money on the Kerchers definitely *not* filing an appeal, even though they have so far taken the stance that they have faith in the Italian police and courts. Either way, I agree Knox should have her own article but it shouldn't be a fan page or hagiography.Strausszek (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Check out the deletion review on Amanda Knox talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Kerchers have standing to appeal, that would come from the prosecutors. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that we could re-title it as Trial of Amanda Knox. For Casey Anthony, the article was originally at Death of Caylee Anthony until it was moved during the trial. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Death of Caylee Anthony was the original title of the article and has not been changed, although some have tried unsuccessfully to create a "Casey Anthony" article. Shirtwaist ☎ 01:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

[16] it was moved just after the trial concluded on July 7 and moved back on July 11 because people were deleting pertinent information since it didn't fall under the trial. "Death" is appropriate for Caylee's case, but not for here. Kercher was clearly murdered, it was not an accidental death, suicide, or manslaughter case. Yet I think "Meredith Kercher killing" is...doesn't sound right, either. People on DRV are saying that it's a BLP violation to have now-acquitted Amanda Knox redirect to a "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article, but I can't figure out what new title we could move to. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The question for her own article should be "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" I think Amanda Knox should have her own article as her notability has built up over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the article should be moved to Trial of Amanda Knox as suggested. A murder is not notable in itself, it's Knox' trial that's notable. Mocctur (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you are talking in respect to WP standards, but try not to say that a trial is more important than the taking of a person's life.... Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sephiroth, Mocctur is talking about notability per wikipedia standards, not importance. He is undeniably correct in his point, and your inappropriate lecturing doesn't add to the conversation.LedRush (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the ongoing deletion review for those intrested: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 3#Amanda Knox - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Raffaele. Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Issymo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox is the more notable one. The case wouldn't get media attention outside Italy if an Italian was tried for murder in Italy. There are no films or books about Sollecito. Mocctur (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox has not been cleared, or found innocent. The conviction has been found to be legally flawed, and has been overturned. That is all. She could still be - probably is- guilty.

Actually she and Sollecito were found innocent (“formula piena” is the legal term). I know it's mind-boggling to some of us from common law countries, but it's true. Brmull (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the acquittal and release

This section needs to be reviewed. It relies on two sources NY Post and Reuters Article. Both are reports of an interview that one of the judges gave to an Italian media source. If you read the NY Post article it emphasises that the judge thinks the original trial was politically biased because she was American. If you read the Reuters article it suggests that Italian judge thinks that essentially she did kill her. Obviously these are two slanted interpretations of one interview.

The Wikipedia article is drafted to represent the views of the NY Post, not Reuters.

Maybe it would be better if an English version of the interview could be found, failing which I think this should be removed as it is not apparent which version of the interview is more accurate. I certainly don't think it is accurate to just pick the NY Post's version of the interview and portray it as what the Italian judge said.

Please note, I am not trying to involve myself in this debate of whether she did it or not - I am only concerned that there is an obvious unprofessional bias being reflected in the Wiki article as it stands. I would raise the same concern if it reflected the Reuters article. Perhaps if it must be included as content, something could be mentioned that different interpretations of the interview have appeared in the English media? (Connolly15 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

One problem is Judge Hellmann has given a number of interviews to the Italian media each of which is slightly different. Brmull (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed Nancy Grace comment on acquittals. The woman is a rabble rouser who never met a defendant who wasn't guilty. I don't see that adding her inflammatory comment helps readers understand anything. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Nancy Grace did find a defendant who (she thought) was not guilty. Martha Stewart. Grace thought Martha was basically innocent. Nancy Grace is a joke. So in any WP article, her name should always be used carefully, sparingly, and in only certain contexts. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The New York Post bases itself on an interview of the Judge with the newspaper 'La Nazione' (but has a wrong link to a news piece which has no interview), while the Reuters article bases itself on the interview of the Judge with newspapers 'La Stampa' and 'Corriere della Sera'. The section definitely needs to be improved.Tinpisa (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The new version is a big improvement, thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

(reset indentation) Since the original interviews of the Judge are in Italian, they have only been partly quoted by the English press. I tried to introduce the other details by translating them from Italian to English in accordance with WP:NOENG. They have however been reversed. I quote from WP:NOENG: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. From my understanding of the text, Wikipedia does trust Wikipedians to translate. Or am I mistaken? Need a clarification please. --Tinpisa (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we can use a source in foreign language for facts (if there is no English language source available) and translate it into prose. What we cannot do is translate a quote by ourselfs as this is a matter of interpretation of the original.TMCk (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the clarification, TMCk! I could have never known these finer points, as there is nothing written in WP:OR#Translations and transcriptions or in WP:NOENG, giving this fine difference between using foreign language facts vs quotes. Thanks once again. Maybe, the policy also needs an updation! :-). Have a nice day. Tinpisa (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCMk! Unlike you, I am still learning at Wikipedia. I need your advice on why you undid revision 454415965, where you commented: Sorry, but you need a source for the English translation. See wp:OR. Per WP:OR#Translations and transcriptions, Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. I have also been told that although the WP:NOTENG section of Wikipedia:Verifiability has been reworded from time to time, its intent has remained the same for several years. This, for example, is the text from the end of 2007. This clearly says: Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. I had placed the sources of the Italian newspapers La Nazione and La Stampa (which are fortunately still there on the page). So inpite of placing a clear citation of the non-English sources, and faithfully tranlating it, you undid my post. You first mentioned that the reversal was since my post needed a source for the English translation as per WP:OR. Then you said that we cannot do is translate a quote by ourselfs as this is a matter of interpretation of the original. But WP:OR even allows spoken words, not just sourced material. You also undid my post about the Supreme Court ruling judging Guede as one of the assasins, saying Appeals: ce. That's already a given; He was convicted for the murder. Obviously, he was convicted for murder, but the Supreme Court of Italy recognised the fact that there was more than one assasin i.e. Guede was not the only one. This is totally different from being the only assasin. After the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Appeals Court, this has a very different meaning. I only brought the fact to light (no original research here), but you removed it. Was there something I didn't understand. I would like to request you to please tell me how I was wrong on both these posts? Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right on this one Tinpisa. I'm not aware of any policy which distinguishes quoted speech from other forms of editor-translated text. I also think the Supreme Court's ruling in Guede's case is notable and relevant. Brmull (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You (Tinpisa) certainly are right that WP policies and guideline don't prohibit translations of quotes from another language although you didn't go by the book and neither did I as it appears. Though there are limitations of how much quotes should be used in a single article and your last edit where you found the same quote you previously translated yourself [The translation from the Reuter's source quite varies from yours if I may point this out] is much better of course but you made a mistake by continuing quoting the article's prose w/o attribution which is a copy-vio. I don't have the time but maybe you could rephrase it into some personal prose, your own writing I mean by this. The way it is now can't stay. In the future please keep in mind that translations [and translations of quotes should really be addressed more thorough in the police and guidelines] from reliable English sources are preferred so editor's translations should be a last resort. This is of course in part my opinion in reading WP guidelines and policies.TMCk (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi TMCk! I expected a more mature response from an experienced Wikipedian. (I'm just a newbie.) Obviously, all of us are fallible (if we arn't, we'd be Gods). I've made many mistakes on Wikipedia (you can see my talk page), and probably you have too. We should admit our mistakes, learn from them, and move on in life. I don't have much time too, and this is perhaps my last post on this page, but I don't think your comment that the way it is now can't stay is justified. I request you to improve the section and the article. I also don't understand your phrase by continuing quoting the article's prose w/o attribution. I was the one who added all the sources in the said section (except the NY Post source). Anyway, I would request you to consider the matter closed as Wikipedia is no place for anger or ego! Tinpisa (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Some food for thought about the media coverage

This interesting article talks of the media coverage of the trial, especially of the shift in the British Tabloids to a more "pro-innocence" stance. This could be useful in several aspects of the article.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/09/22/news/amanda-knox-long-strange-trip-may-begin-end-tonig

Actually, as the final arguments begin, the quality of the reporting, and good overall summaries of the trials, are popping up.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As it stands the "Media Coverage" section is five paragraphs of how horribly Knox was treated by the media, so any acknowledgement that there was a shift to a more pro-defence POV would be an improvement. However the suggestion that this change occurred recently, rather than years ago is the opinion of Steve Shay, not a statement of fact. Brmull (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And in addition to the dozens of articles calling the case controversial, we see that the case is called controversial even when the media isn't talking about the case. http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/travel/36-hours-in-perugia-italy.html I think it's almost time to officially change the name of the trial to the "Controversial Trial of...".LedRush (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"The controversial murder trial of the American Amanda Knox" is not the same as "The case is controversial". The case encompasses many additional things, including the conviction of Rudy Guede, which is so far not controversial (although that may change if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted). Brmull (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it should be "the murder trial of the controversial american amanda..."- the adjective should be close to the noun it qualifies. OR, something like "the trial of the controversial american amanda ... for the murder of the meredith ..." should be clearer. I presume that all the controversy is with the american... and this is uncontroversial. Also the controversy exists only in the media (should be clearly mentioned) and the judicial process is free from controversy.

chami 15:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)  

What you wrote makes absolutely no sense to me.LedRush (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The conviction of Guede is uncontroversial, but it adds extra controversy to the case as a whole that the person with clear DNA linking him to the crime (etc. etc.) got a lighter sentence than the people a lot of outside commentators say should have been released as soon as Guede was linked to it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is called "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and not "Meredith Kercher murder case" because there is more than one trial. If we were to use the phrase in question it would be appropriate to say "the cases are controversial". But, as several people have pointed out, the phrase is so vague as to be meaningless, and any attempt to narrow it would necessarily be inadequate. The current wording is much better, although "divergent" might be more encyclopedic than "polarized." Brmull (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone has made the argument that the term controversial as used in the context of describing wither the Knox trials or the other trials is vague, I've missed it. It's also pretty silly. It is quite precise in its meaning. Furthermore, the old language made it even more precise when we went into specific aspects of the case which were controversial. It seems disingenuous to delete statements which make a sentence more precise, and then call the result vague.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This article [17] has a good summary of how the case is perceived in the US. "The American student has won sympathy from many in the United States, where she is widely seen as an innocent abroad who fell into the clutches of an unfair justice system."LedRush (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is also good regarding the media coverage [18] "Bongiorno noted that the prosecutors have tried to counter press reports that have highlighted problems with the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito and the growing sympathy in the Italian media for the defendants. Bongiorno called the media the prosecution's "boomerang," since press reports during the 2007 investigation and the 2009 trial were so negative towards Knox and Sollecito." Of course, references to the first sentence and the characterization of the "boomerang" would all be directly attributed to Bongiorno.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You changed "medieval" to "unfair"! The original is funnier. Anyway the first clause is okay, but the second clause has that troublesome opinion-word "widely" again. Nadeau said today that when she asks Americans about Amanda Knox, the most common response is "Who?" The ABC News quote is okay as long as it's all attributed to Bongiorno. But can we have some balance? Mignini said he'd never in his career heard of a TV network flying in supporters in exchange for interviews. Ghirlanda owns Corriere and his relationship with Knox and her friend Madison is well documented. Nadeau and others have extensively reported David Marriott's attempts to control the media message. One media outlet even printed an email from IIP offering to arrange an interview with Dr Hampikian. Is none of this stuff notable? Brmull (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind posting your source? Why is it a big deal if an interview with Dr Hampikian was arranged? Aren't all interviews arranged? The reports about Marriott have been a joke. The claims of a "PR Supertanker" are a farce that you appear to have bought in on. Marriott must be one powerful guy to be able to control every major news network in America! BruceFisher (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My "clauses" are direct quotes from the articles: pure copy and paste jobs. Judging by your first comment, one article may have changed (a problem with non-print stories). Anyway, other information would be acceptable if notable. I think Mignini's comments in the closing may be warranted, with Bongiorno's response as above (seeing as they both talk about the media coverage). The piece below is truly staggering. I'm sure our British friends won't like it, but if you read until the end you can tell the author at least did some research and investigation. It supports that Guede was known to use knives (in crimes) and to engage in activities similar to those he engaged on the night of the murder (no, those activities don't include murder). I've heard it before, but to see it in Time like this really hits home.LedRush (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another article. This one is odd as the CBS correspondent calls the case against Knox a "farce" [19]LedRush (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking informally, in most countries when there's a highly publicized story of one or more tourist/s getting accused in "a vacation country" - a part of the world seen as picturesque but not up to the home country of tourist and reporters in judicial or economic standards - accused of a really grave and violent crime such as rape or murder, the popular media will strongly tend to side with "our kids" against the "medieval justice system" or inept/corrupt police of said backpacker country. That kind of slant is a reflex with those who sell the story at home (and in the international arena, plus sometimes including upmarket, highly serious newspapers), not just with US tabloid media, and the reporting tends to make eyes at the police work or judicial competence of those southern hobbits. How dare they accuse one of ours of such a foul felony!

That kind of dynamic is plainly visible in many stories of this kind and it could be discerned in the Maddie McCann story too, although that one never led to a really sustained court case. The media, semi-scripted by the McCann couple, insinuated that the Portuguese police were incompetent or ill-natured and the McCanns, at the same time, used the hubbub around the case to avoid cooperating with the police. Like the Knox family, they had good media connections and the Knoxes clearly have huge resources to throw behind the campaigning in the media. Having said that,. I agree "widely" in the quote is a weasel word and the perception of this murder story in the U.S. no doubt varies a great deal depending on what kind of people you'd ask.Strausszek (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Time of Postal Police arrival

I removed the 12:35 time for the arrival of the Postal Police. During the first trial, it was shown that the Postal Police arrived after the call to 112, not before as a time of 12:35 implies. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that but a new cite is needed. Brmull (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that heavily disputed? And since we know that the second trial came to different conclusions than the first, that change might not be such a good idea.LedRush (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

12:35 was the time the prosecution said the postal police arrived at the parking garage, before it was known that the CCTV clock was 10-12minutes slow. The revised time was 12:46 which put them at the cottage shortly before 1 pm, which is also when Filomena arrived. Sollecito's defence postulated an even later time based on an erroneous police log, but that didn't work because everyone agrees that Filomena & friends and the postal police arrived at the same time. This is all from the Massei report. Still haven't found another source. Brmull (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We have been over this before in one of the nastiest fights I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The compromise that ended the dispute was simply to leave the time out. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the postal police arrival demonstation that proved the Raffaele called the police before they arrived: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/postale.pdf. Issymo (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Basis of acquittal

The basis of acquittal is a key part of the legal case. I visited this page to add a clear short summary based on an explanation of key points. The list looked reasonable, was reported on BBC news, and also seemed neutral, hence edited in. It got taken out.

I'm not sure why it was removed. The revert was on the unlikely grounds of "shoehorning in... text which implies the acquittal was a fix or dubious", but this is clearly incorrect considering the first 5 items cited in the original article were:

• Reasonable doubt instilled over the quality of DNA testing and forensic evidence
• "A few" crime scene errors "successfully portrayed as generalised incompetence"
• No convincing proof of Knox's presence
• No credible motive
• Unreliable witness (Curatolo had admitted being a heroin addict)

(Source and original list)

Removing this sourced balanced information is unhelpful for understanding of the legal outcome. Reinstate? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edit, but suspect that the issue here is that the source gives the guesses of a freelance journalist (and doesn't pretend otherwise) rather than the actual reasoning of the court, which will not be released for a few months. --FormerIP (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Until that report comes out, the best we can say is that "jounalists/legal experts have speculated that the reasons for acquittal were...". I'm not saying there is no place in the article for that, but it doesn't seem like something I am very comfortable with.LedRush (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Source is more credible than that - it's the author of a book on the case speaking to the BBC, rather than speculation by a frelancer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is fine. It's a question of not giving the impression that those are the actual reasons, rather than the opinions of a journalist (or author, fine). I also think there's no need to rush that type of content. There should maybe be an "opinions on verdict" section or something, but using multiple sources giving different perspectives. --FormerIP (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when we have more opinions and analyses of the verdict we should do that. But even if we have just one, if it seems fairly neutral it's useful and relevant to add. In this case the points seem balanced, some relate to flaws in evidence or process, some describe factors related to how cases proceed in Italy, some refer to PR and social factors. The text is by an author on the case, and is published by a reputable media source. I think this can stand, although as time goes on, more will surely be published in RS. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed similar content for the reasons stated above: it is opinion stated as fact. I could just as easily include Nancy Grace's opinion that it was a miscarriage of justice and state it in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, the court has already stated its reasoning: there was no credible evidence. Brmull (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm, citation needed. --FormerIP (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Brmull, you had no valid WP reason or right to unilaterally remove that section, simply because "you don't like it". Or because you think it's just mere "opinion" stated as fact. What you miss for some reason is that contextually it's part of defense arguments and IS SOURCED. There was no real solid valid reason to remove that. Otherwise remove other sections too, in that area, to be consistent, that deal with defense arguments and issues. You're incorrect when you say it's just "opinion stated as fact". These were all documented points and facts. How was "no DNA in bedroom", for example, just an "opinion"? If you don't like the wording, then MAYBE MODIFY that, per WP policy and recommendation. The WP recommendation is NOT to totally delete a whole section that you don't like, even though it's sourced, because of MAYBE questionable "wording". But the recommendation is to modify or tweak, NOT to remove. But the overall point is there. The criteria is this: was everything in that section true or correct?...and is it all SOURCED? Answer to both questions is Yes. Removing a whole section willy nilly, without valid reason, or making up reasons that are not really true, is arguably vandalism, or at the very least "I Don't Like". Again, the thing is sourced, and is a matter of public court record, and is documented, and again, in context was part of defense arguments, and should be mentioned in the article...in the overall sections dealing with the trial and case and defense. It's true and sourced, and was part of the defense. And WP should reflect that. End of story. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not the end of the story just because you say it is. As the person who added new content it's your responsibility to justify why it should be included. By your reasoning I could put anything I want into the article that I think is true and I think is sourced. We are having a discussion now about whether it is appropriate to include speculation on the reasons for the acquittal at this time. Several people including myself believe it is not. Mr. FT2 just had an essentially identical edit removed pending discussion, so to leave yours and to remove his makes no sense. Brmull (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but again, you incorrectly asserted that it was mere "opinion". And with this point, you didn't answer the question, like how, for example, was "no DNA in bedroom", just an "opinion"? As well as the other points stated? These were confirmed factual points, that went way beyond the New York Post or USA Today "opinion". And these points were brought out by the defense. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Former IP: "there is no evidence" - Judge Hellmann. Brmull (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Slightly poor use of Google translate there. "Amanda e Raffaele possono anche essere responsabili della morte di Meredith, ma non ci sono le prove" = "Amanda and Raffaele may also be responsible for Mereidith's death, but there is not the proof". Hardly the same as "no credible evidence and also not a quote from Hellmann but part of the journalist's write-up. What Hellmann actually says is "La nostra valutazione è che non è stato sufficiente l'impianto accusatorio ma indubbiamente gli elementi c'erano" = "Our evaluation is that the prosecution case was not sufficient but parts of it were undoubtedly valid". --FormerIP (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

These are real people we are talking about. They are now free and have been unequivocally acquitted, like it or not. Slanting this article to make it look as though there is something dodgy about the acquittals could have real-world consequences for them. Please let's be responsible about this. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We maintain a neutral viewpoint, which is non-negotiable. Would you rather misrepresent the trial result? The trial findings were what they were. We represent that honestly and faithfully. Undoubtedly the findings are nuanced - they do not say all evidence was fake or wrong, they do not say all evidence was valid and upheld. They say this evidence stood up well, that evidence did not, and the parties are therefore according to Italian law acquitted. And that's exactly how we should report it so a reader can gain a genuine understanding. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian with a similar quote. Hellmann said slightly different things in different interviews, but it's a 530.1 acquittal. That means no convicing evidence. Brmull (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In the interview you linked to above, Hellmann says is was 530.2. --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So it does. Thanks for pointing that out. Obviously Hellmann is confused because when he read the verdict he said "for not having committed the crime" which is the language for 530.1 Brmull (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps reinserting a bullet point list of reasons for the acquittal. I agree that we should have a section which discusses the reasons for the acquittal, but I think it should be based on the Judge's report and not on the speculation of pundits. Until the report is released, I suggest we simply stick with what the presiding judge (and what the other judge and lay judges) said about this. If we want to talk about the media reaction to the acquittal, that's fine. But that should be in the media section, completely separate from a section discussing the stated reasons of the court.LedRush (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comment shows clearly what I've been saying, that you just don't understand the point here. It was NOT ABOUT the judge's reversal, but rather about DEFENSE ARGUMENTS...mainly. It was NOT ABOUT the media's reaction the acquittal, or their guesses, necessarily. (sighs...) It was about what the defense argued. And the general "problems" with the "evidence" against Amanda Knox. That's not just a "pundit's" opinion, but things that were documented and stated ALREADY. It's not speculation that these were (I'll say it again, so you can maybe finally get it) DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE arguments. And the section that you kept uptightly removing was CONTEXTUAL to that matter. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't you find some sources that back up what you're saying, and place the suggested language in the discussion page so we can talk about it. Also, could you please try and engage in discussion civilly? Your drama doesn't help your case, nor do your repeated personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

??You keep whining about civility, but what you keep doing here does not make that easy. You just said "why not find some sources"?? Ok, I'll repeat: OTHER SOURCES WERE FOUND... You said here just now "find some sources that back up what you're saying". What do you mean exactly? I found two other sources today, that I placed nicely (it took work, that you just rudely removed and didn't care about obviously), that "backed it up". If you had an issue with the "New York Post" thing in the beginning, if you saw my edit comments, I said I agree in a way, and then found two more (so far) sources substantiating what was stated in the points there. So again, I'll ask, what did you mean by "find some sources"? Did you see what I placed there before you hastily reverted again? Two more sources were found. Did you not even notice that? Or maybe those sources were somehow not good enough? Just curious... Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources I saw did not substantiate the specific claims made in the bullet points. Why not take the get the sources (and any others you want) and create a new section here which pulls directly and exclusively from those sources?LedRush (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you weren't looking carefully enough, because those two other sources DID substantiate (hence why I got them the first place!) those couple of bulleted points there. Not sure how you missed it. Unless it's as I said on your talk page, you're just not honest, and, for whatever reason, you just don't like that section or those points on there. And just use front excuses to get rid of it. Conveniently. Human nature. I wanna give the benefit of the doubt. But those sources made those couple of points clear. And even if they didn't, the WP policy is to modify something, not necessarily totally get rid of it. But as I said, I can't reason with a person who is being blatantly dishonest about things. It just doesn't work. Those two other ref sources clearly confirmed those points, yet you said they didn't. I could prove it to you, on here, by copying and pasting things, etc, showing it, but at this point, it's not worth the trouble, cuz I'm sure you'll find something there somehow that "doesn't confirm" it anyway. Those bulletted points were not made up by the NY Post, or any other news organization. They didn't concoct them, but got them from documented things in the case, and defense arguments. And in context to that part of the article, it IS relevant...and informative. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you spent the time you used to make personal attacks while petulantly whining about your edits instead making an actual argument with proof here, you'd probably have something in the article by now.LedRush (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice dodge. You didn't answer just how those two sources did not confirm those couple of points there, but just asserted so. Why would I even find and put those sources there in the first place then, if they had nothing to do with at least two of those bulletted points? Obviously it was backing it up. Let me ask you, is it maybe because you have something against the idea of a list or bulletted points, in general? (I'll expect another evasion...and crowing about "personal attacks"...or maybe just crickets...but it would be nice to have an answer...two those two questions. How exactly did those sources not back anything up? And do you have something against bulletted listings etc?) Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell me how this did not confirm this bulletted point that was there:

Other knife: DNA on another knife found at Raffaelle Sollecito's house had such a slight presence it could not be ruled an exact match to Kercher.[119]

"Two experts argued that DNA evidence found on the knife used to kill Kercher and on her bra clasp was unreliable and contaminated by poor handling."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/02/world/europe/knox-appeal-explainer/

That was one of the sources put in, that I doubt you really checked carefully. But how exactly does that not confirm the point? That's CNN. I mean, New York Post should have been enough, as that is a reliable source, but you claimed that all those points was not found in the article...not understanding that it was NOT on the website, but on the physical hard copy news paper. But even after the CNN page ref, you still question and remove the whole thing. And ignore the obvious relevance with defense arguments. Hence why I say that THERE'S NO REASONING WITH A PERSON LIKE YOU. I knew that basically from second one of seeing your words. I'm waiting for more dodges now from you and more whines about uh "personal attacks" while ignoring the actual specifics and clear proof that I just copied and pasted and demonstrated. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have some doubts about bullets. The body of the article previously did not have bullets. What makes these points more worthy of being bulleted than anything else in the article? Secondly, we know from painful experience with this article that partial lists are contentious. Someone will want to add to the list. Someone else will want to substract from it. If there was a way to phrase this information that wouldn't be a magnet for controversy I'd be in favor, but right now I just don't see it. Brmull (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if that's true, there's nothing in WP policy that forbids bullets or listings. Listings are easy reading and informative, and generally appreciated by readers. Quick reference, etc. And again, the thing was sourced, and accurate. Those things should be paramount. NOT whether they sometimes can attract controversy or attitudes. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Bullet lists are awful. They dumb down the encyclopedia. We have a template specifically against lists:

DreamGuy (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox - the Untold Story

Does anyone have the information for this documentary to include it in the list on the article?LedRush (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This article [20] seems to be a detailed version of the show (a transcript maybe?) I'm sure it won't please the guilters, but it provides a wealth of summary information for the article. However, it is obviously a pro-Knox piece, and like all of these articles it can't be treated like gospel.LedRush (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah here's a great line for the article: To Mignini, a staunch Catholic with a medieval mindset, Amanda Knox was a sinner who took part in a satanic orgy that resulted in the murder of an innocent. LOL. Brmull (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For similar views, see the Prosecutor's Obsessions section in The strange ideas and enduring mysteries of the Kercher case by Peter Popham in the 9 October 2011 edition of The Independent.     ←   ZScarpia   14:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are supposed to LOL at that. It seems to be an accurate summary. It sounds rather bizarre because it accurately describes someone with a demonstrated history of making bizarre claims. Mignini did indeed originally propose Knox as being a Satanist who killed Kercher in an Satanic sex orgy, in line with other similar accusations he came up with in previous cases. This is well documented in a ton of reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, "staunch Catholic" is a slur. If you don't believe me go to a Catholic blog and call someone a staunch Catholic. "Medieval mindset" isn't even a real entity. It's just an insult. There is no way to know if Mignini thought "Amanda Knox was a sinner" or that Meredith Kercher was an "innocent" because he never said anything of the sort. It's just a way of mocking him for being religious. And I've written extensively here about how the phrase "satanic orgy" originates with Sollecito attorney Luca Maori and should not be attributed to the Mignini. Apart from all of this, it's a (LOL) totally accurate summary. Brmull (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits made in the last two days by one editor

Is there anybody here who does not have a problem with those edits in regards of style, MOS, POV, BLP concerns, undue weight, removal of content, etc.?TMCk (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Among other things I am concerned that there is overweighting of the views of Nina Burleigh, who was featured in the NYT for having crossed the line from journalist to advocate. If I started lifting POV from Angel Face and dumping it en masse into the article, I think some people would have a problem with that. Brmull (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Brmull and as TMCk points out...I have concerns that the editor seems to have an agenda.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • To clarify my point and intend, I think a set-back to the last good version (in my opinion the one from 14:19, October 13, 2011) is in order and then work it up from there.TMCk (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree and I had been contemplating something similar as this editor does not seem to have a handle on some of our policies. Her looks don't matter concerning this article and is a clear violation of NPOV. As an example, editor is laboring under a misunderstanding that if it is in reliable sources that this gives carte blanche to include.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The "ugly duck" edit is just the tip of the ice berg and shows that the editor either has an agenda as you said or just no clue about how to edit WP.TMCk (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm an occasional visitor these days, but my 2₧ - there does seem to be a problem. Anyone discussed with the editor? pablo 00:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know although they tried pushing another POV before (see thread above).
::For now, is there any agreement to roll back those edits as I pointed out above?TMCk (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing all of this, I'm inclined to agree with the need for a large-scale revert. I found this edit particularly odd: in it, a line of text was changed so that it ended up reading "Knox's lawyers argued that DNA evidence was wrong and citing a 47-day delay in retrieving the samples." So the DNA was just "wrong"? In what way? SuperMarioMan 01:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Observer, Sunday 24 July 2011"Soon after she was chosen to review Stefanoni's work on the Knox case, Vecchiotti claimed that documents had been withheld from her. The final report, co-authored with Stefano Conti, bemoans the scant detail Stefanoni used to back up her findings. After discovering there was no DNA left to check on the knife or the bra clasp, the experts retraced the steps taken by Stefanoni, concluding that the DNA trace of Kercher on the blade was so weak it could not be reliably matched – or was at best the result of contamination – and quoted Stefanoni admitting in court she should have double-tested her result to be more convincing. Stefanoni claimed she had no need to repeat tests since the experts for the defence were on hand to witness her work. "And it was good enough to show it was Kercher's DNA," she said. "A small amount, but good quality.""

She not only destroyed any possibly of replicating the results. She did not have any detailed records of what she did. That is egregious and, I'm afraid, very suspicious. Scientists, above all forensic scientist are taught to keep records of their results at every step.

Experts dismiss DNA evidence as Knox nears end of murder appeal"The expert witnesses employed for the review, Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti from La Sapienza University in Rome, testified that the tiny quantity of DNA available was not sufficient for reliable analysis. They also said there was no trace of blood on the knife identified as the murder weapon.[...] Dr Vecchiotti insisted that her review had revealed serious failings in the original forensic evidence. She said investigators had "evaluated a quantity of DNA that no one in the world would try to analyse".[...] Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, questioned the new defence evidence in relation to the original analysis of Ms Kercher's bra clasp said to contain Sollecito's DNA. Dr Vecchiotti replied that it contained too many different traces to be reliable, noting that apart from the victim's DNA and that of Sollecito, she had found small traces of at least 16 other people; including herself – presumably as a result of contamination. "Anyone's DNA could be on there," she said tersely.Overagainst (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert all pending further discussion. Brmull (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"I is not they, as anyone can see from checking my contibutions over the years. I have not edited or tried to edit this page before a couple of days ago. Some of yesterdays editing was poor and weakly referenced I'll admit. Taking that on board I'll try to stick to check-able (ie online) news reports of court proceedings from reliable sources. That is going to be easy as the case has been covered from day one. I'll suggest an edit here and seek consensus from now on. If refs are referenced national news organisation such as the BBC or newspapers' reporting of court proceedings please give reasons for why my edit does not faithfully paraphrase the information in my source, if that is your objection. I will try and support my proposals with good sources. Matters of fact are not POV.Overagainst (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to consider the substance, too though. Phrases like "had grown from a teen ugly duckling ... into an unusually attractive young woman ..." are inherently POV, even if referenced to a 'news' source.  pablo 18:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, don't mention looks. They affect the way someone is perceived though.Overagainst (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)