Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38

Forensic evidence

"Prosecution witnesses stated that the knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck.[56][96] Carlo Torre, a professor of criminal science based in Turin,[97] hired by Knox testified that all three wounds originated from a different knife that had a blade one quarter the size of that recovered from Sollecito's flat.[98]" I propose altering this text to "Carlo Torre, one of Italy's most renowned forensics experts,(ref sourceCNN Wire Staff September 24, 2011) testified for the defense that all three wounds originated from a different knife, one with a blade one quarter the size of that recovered from Sollecito's flat."


"Knox's fingerprints were not found in Kercher's bedroom, nor in her own bedroom."[48][100] Unless someone can cite a reliable source for the absence of (viable) fingerprints (not smudges) of Miss Knox in her own bedroom being significant it should not be presented as if it is evidence of wiping fingerprints. If the court heard forensic or other evidence that fingerprints had been wiped away or testimony that someone could clean their own blood and fingerprin­ts leaving only Rudy Guede's fingerprin­ts in such a way that it could not be forensically detected that the surfaces had been wiped please cite it. Overagainst (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that as evidence of wiping fingerprints. You are attempting original research with that and no source is necessary to refute your assertion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm glad you can see it is not significant, as isn't relevant either "nor in her own bedroom" can be deleted. Overagainst (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It may or may not be significant as it is just stating some of the facts in the case. But please don't attempt to draw conclusions by putting words in my mouth as I didn't say any such thing as you imply.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Investigators argued that a break-in had been staged at the flat, partly because the window seemed to have been broken after the room had been ransacked.[101]" I propose changing this to "The prosecution argued that the window had been broken after belongings had been disturbed proving that the burglary had been staged. Overagainst (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

DNA

I think the all the main DNA evidence, (ie the bra clasp as well as the knife) should be mentioned. Also, the court appointed independent experts were more critical of the DNA evidence than warrants calliing it merely 'flawed', their criticism was unqualified. The Observer, Sunday 24 July 2011 " The report claims Stefanoni ignored international DNA protocols, made basic errors and gave evidence in court that was not backed up by her laboratory work, rendering the knife and bra strap worthless as evidence". There is support here for saying flat out that the DNA evidence suposedly incriminating Miss Knox and Mr. Sollecito was 'worthless'. Flawed is significantly weaker than warranted by the extraordinarily severe criticism which the report makes about the DNA evidence Overagainst (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation clutter

For future reference, when adding newspapers as cites, we only need byline, headline, name of newspaper, date of publication, and link if available. People have been adding access dates (only needed for websites you think might disappear), locations (only needed for unknown publications), name of publisher, and the newspaper's issn and oclc numbers. Also, it's best to avoid citation templates because they slow down load time, but if they are used, there's no need to fill out all the parameters. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Guede leaving home

Brmull, do you have sources for 2006? The sources I've read said 2007. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure it's in Burleigh p. 97 - He was living with his aunt in Lecco until late spring 2007. And on p. 96 Corporali says his family had no contact with Rudy for a year before his arrest in December 2007. (The Micheli sentencing report has more details including the fact that Guede's Perugia friends were helping him find work, and he was working part-time up until August 2007 when he became unemployed.) Brmull (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't find where Burleigh says that on p. 97. She says he moved out of his adoptive family's home, then went to live with his aunt in the winter and spring of 2007. That suggests he left the family home at the beginning of 2007. The comment that the family had no contact with him for a year before his arrest in Nov 2007 doesn't necessarily mean exactly 12 months. Dempsey also says it was 2007. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, here Caporali says Guede on lived with him for 7 or 8 months, which would have put it in 2005. I think he's wrong. I've read--I can't remember where--that Guede lived with the Caporalis from age 17 to age 19. Guede turned 20 in December 2006. Brmull (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A concern

Overagainst, I appreciate what you are doing here, trying to fix the article up. But I'm worried that you're doing to Guede what others did to Knox/Sollecito. For example:

Guede continues to plead his innocence but his guilt is undisputed.[1] He broke into the upper floor of the house, where Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox lived while no one was in, after reaching to open shutters and breaking a window with a rock the athletic Guede then climbed back up, opened the window and entered the bedroom occupied by Filomena Romanelli.

Guede protests his innocence, and therefore no one can say that he broke into the house, etc, in Wikipedia's voice. While I agree that he does have the background, and this seems to be the most obvious conclusion, it continues to be one claim among others. It therefore has to be written in a more disinterested tone. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Extra concerns over the new "Knox becomes the target of investigation" content too - I'm going to remove some of the newly added uncited material. Firstly because as read it makes little sense (with no context), secondly because it starts soapboxing about her innocence and thirdly because it does appear to be uncited. --Errant (chat!) 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
ErrantX, "soapboxing about her innocence" I made no such assertion, never say what I can't prove. That is why I do not claim to not be a secret billionaire who is also a babe magnet in spite of keeping his vast wealth secret. I know I'm not, but how could I prove it to you ?
OK Slim. I can't disagree with any of that, and should have listened to my inner voice which kept whispering that there is good reason for articles being written in a measured way. Point taken.Overagainst (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, and no worries. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

T

Slim, Could you tell me the status of the Simple English Wikipedia article Murder of Meredith Kercher? here are some of the things I would like to use in whatever format.

Guede claimed Kercher met with him on Halloween, but her friends testified that they had gone partying with her, and none of them saw her talking to Guede.[7] Guede claimed Kercher was fully dressed when stabbed, but blood spots on her skin indicated that her T-shirt was pulled above her bra when she was stabbed.[7] Guede claimed the white pillow remained on the bed, but it was found under the body, marked with his left shoe print (from Nike Outbreak 2 tennis shoes) and his palm-print in blood.[7] Guede claimed that he did not return to undress and move the body, but the bra and severed bra strap had DNA matching Guede's DNA genetic profile,[7] also on her body and handbag. Guede claimed he did not break the upstairs window in the third bedroom, but just 5 days earlier, he had been caught afterhours in a Milan school, with a laptop computer and mobile phone stolen from a law office burgled with a rock breaking through an upstairs window.[7] Guede claimed he had not stabbed Kercher, but when caught inside the Milan school on 27 October 2007, the local police searched his backpack and found a kitchen knife stolen from the school kitchen.[7]

Here is the ref for that ↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 Micheli Judgment (Motivation) 2009-01-26, recap for October 2008 trial of Rudy Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English): Translate.google, Italian webpage: Pen.it.

Is that ref good enough ?. Also can I reference the SE Wikipedia article and ref number on that page directly ? Overagainst (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That ref is good enough for material not already in our article (but don't reference the SE WP article, just the source), but it's a primary source, so it would be better to find a high-quality secondary source that discussed it, if possible. If you do find that, you can link to both the primary source and secondary source in the footnote, if you want to. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In case it's helpful to you, this is how I handle primary sources for anything contentious (this is just my personal thing). For example, I would write:

"John Smith writes that the court heard testimony from X alleging that Y."

John Smith's book is the secondary source, and the court transcript the primary source. So I would write in the footnote:

<ref>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. Routledge, 2011, p. 1.

  • See R v. Y, Central Criminal Court, London, 18 October 2010, para 500.</ref>

If it's entirely uncontentious, the primary source is fine by itself, but if someone might challenge it, a secondary source is needed. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusing

It is good to see a Trials... article being split from this :) But I am confused by the new ordering of this article. We have a potential BLP problem in the headings which imply Knox/Sollecito are convicted... we seem to deal with some aspects of the trial & appeal under the name headings, and then more later on.. Can I suggest:

  • Cutting anything post-murder from the Guede & Knox sections and replacing them further down the article where they fit in the timeline
  • Renaming that top level section (not sure on what the rename it to...)
  • Figuring out a clear way to cover "murder - background - investigation - trials - aftermath" in a way that covers Guede in detail, but Knox/Sollecito in summary form (cutting off to the Trials.. article for more depth). --Errant (chat!) 13:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Errant, the way the article is written is so problematic that I'd appreciate it if nothing further is cut until we get some semblance of order and comprehensiveness. Then we can start moving material around to create a better structure. I think a structure will start to suggest itself as the article is written.
Also, Knox/Sollecito are clearly central to this, in terms of how it unfolded and became so notable, so removing too much about them will leave the article decimated. I have concerns about the new trial article turning into a POV fork. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm just thinking out loud - the only major extant issue is the title. But the structure does need looking at ASAP too IMO because otherwise we'll just have to start from scratch again. I think we can deal with most of the K/S trial in summary here (we mostly do have just summary left right now) and cover specifics at greater length in the fork. But we should probably agree all this rather than wander aimlessly :) --Errant (chat!) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've moved some of the murder material higher, so the article doesn't begin with a list of bios. That means the reader will know the basic facts before getting more detail in the investigations and trials sections, which still need to be streamlined. We also need a good summary-style section containing the material recently moved to the new trials article, so long as it's not already elsewhere in the article. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

'Amanda Knox becomes the target of investigation' section in article

Proposed text. Where there is (...) the rationale is inside the brackets and not part of the text I'm proposing, obviously.

An elite police unit which had a record of success against some of Italy's' most notorious criminals was called in to deal with the investigation. Later, while Amanda Knox was still in prison, their commander Edgardo Giobbi, showed a rogues gallery of those the unit had put in prison including Bernardo Provenzano and Knox. She struck an anomalous note in the gallery,(she's been freed, the others have not hence she's anomalous) In CBS footage (link) Knox is surrounded by detectives, mainly middle aged men who tower over her. Police thought she was not upset enough and too sexy, (one reportedly remarked she "smelled of sex", so not anything she actually did) ref Amanda Knox: What's in a face?. However Giobbi, who had been lead investigator, gave an interview claiming that he had suspected within hours of the murder that Knox was involved because she bust out crying[1] of the way she swivelled her hips when putting on a pair of protective shoe covers at the house where the murder occurred. (article does not say he gave her them) Following the discovery of Kercher's body police found no forensic evidence tying Knox to the scene of the crime but the police came to take an particular interest in her and she became the focus of the investigation. However some writers have suggested that the unlikely (i am open to discussion however it is an unlikely scenario IMO) scenario of a slightly built 20 year old leading her boyfriend of seven days and a powerful (Guede played competitive basketball, he is strong) headstrong petty criminal(his crimes testify to that) in the torture, sexual assault and murder of her friend has similarities with previous unlikely, and now discredited, therories which Giuliano Mignini the prosecutor, had advanced earlier in his career. Mignini was about to face trial for abuse of office for the measures that he had resorted to against journalists who disagreed with his theories in an earlier case.refThe Monster of Florence By Douglas Preston, Mario Spezi Many Italian journalists feared to incur his displeasure.ref Tuesday 4 October 2011,Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher and the media A video showing Knox being comforted outside the cottage by her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, was thought highly significant, and police believed they were able to read Knox's guilt in her demeanor. Giobbi said: "We were able to establish guilt by closely observing the suspect's psychological and behavioural reaction during the interrogation. We don't need to rely on other kinds of investigation."Leslie, Ian. "Amanda Knox: What's in a face?", The Guardian, 8 October 2011.

Comments on minor or major wording changes will be welcome. Overagainst (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You need more sources. Also the Youtube video appears to be a copyvio so we can't use it as a source. Particularly for the first few sentences... particularly for the anomolous claim (which jumps up at me as possible original research).. I'm not sure of the context or relevance of the text about the "rogues gallery" - when was it shown. To whom. Why? Who has commented on it. If this is a notable matter then it might be worth mentioning - but with the current context... not there. The reason I suggest it seems "soapboxy" is because it is making statements about how unlikely a suspect she was in a quite preachy way. Tough is not really a good way to describe them - feels WP:POV and flowery. Police thought she was not upset enough and too sexy; not sure about this, I can see what you are trying to say but based on the source it is pushing the point a little too strongly. I would suggest rephrasing it to mention her attitude, body language and actions. Following the discovery.. I'd shift this to be the second sentence and drop the bit about "following the discovery". i am open to discussion however it is an unlikely scenario IMO; just to note - if you ever find yourself writing content with this sort of thinking stop and rethink - because our own views are not relevant and we must take pains to discard them. However some writers have suggested that the unlikely; all of this really needs a source. I'd also suggest that if we have a section which deals with why people believed the accusations to be unfounded then it should be placed there for better context. powerful headstrong petty criminal; this needs a strong source to back it up, because it is quite POV & from the comments feels a lot like your own interpretation/OR. Mignini was about to face trial for abuse of office; this material is much discussed and we never really resolved where it should go. But definitely not here - hung off of a very tenuous thread.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss proposals :) I think the main issue I have with this section is that it "sets up" a picture of a poor American girl surrounded by burly policemen, sex-crazed slightly mad detectives and a prosecutor with the press under his thumb. The wording paints that picture in quite an impassioned way and the tone isn't really suitable for an encyclopaedia :) --Errant (chat!) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Long Way from Home April 12, CBS News 2 minutes 1 sec CBS are not going to complain about us citing them are they? Watching this does not make me feel 'flowery' AT ALL. I certainly agree with you that tough is not really a good way to describe them. "Police thought she was not upset enough and too sexy, one reportedly remarked she "smelled of sex",)your going to have to clik on the links for the ref OK ref Amanda Knox: What's in a face?.
March 18, 2010 Amanda Knox Italian Police Bombshell: We Knew She Was Guilty of Murder Without Physical Evidence "How did Italian police target Knox and Sollecito so quickly? One answer came three months after the arrests. In February 2008, 48 Hours met with Fabio (I think that's a typo the correct name is Edgardo) Giobbi, a department head at the Via Tuscolana offices of the forensic police. Giobbi told 48 Hours he was proud that Knox and Sollecito were arrested before fingerprints, blood, footprints, or DNA were analyzed by his office. Instead, Giobbi explained, the case was solved simply by observing Amanda Knox's behavior".

Overagainst (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mignini

We seem to be adding a section about Mignini. While in theory I think such a section may be warranted (and an article on him is certainly warranted), I am worried about the section becoming a repository for accusations about why Mignini sucks. This strays from the purpose of this article (the murder of Kercher) and can become a serious BLP issue. I've removed the section once because it was not supported by a RS, and while the new section is sourced, it still seems problematic. Does anyone have views on this?LedRush (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, it is problematic. There are a few pertinent facts about Mignini available, but this section as it is now seems to have an agenda. pablo 15:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it because of BLP & coatracking concerns. The Doug Preston material and tangential accusations have no merit here. It is off-topic as well.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The article does need a summary-style section on Mignini, as he was central to everything that unfolded. Trying to explain the sequence of events without reference to that centrality would be close to impossible. Whatever is written, though, should be sourced to current high-quality sources, not tabloid articles from a few years ago. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Giuliano Mignini has been convicted

OK well taking on board your suggestions we should mention as highly pertinent to an encyclopedic article, that at the same time as he was leading the prosecution of Knox, Mignini was himself being tried for abuse of his prosecutorial powers in another case If you don't like the ref because mention of Preston is not allowed ABC News, Sept. 30, 2011 Critics Say Controversial Knox Prosecutor Is Seeking Redemption that ref could be replaced by Amanda Knox prosecutor convicted (22 Jan 2010)

It has been widely reported in national newspapers that Mignini was convicted on those charges and given a 16-month jail sentence in January 2010; he is appealing as I mentioned. Daily Mail 24th January 2010, Amanda Knox's father welcomes jail term for Meredith Kercher murder prosecutor for 'corruption'

Here is what we could add - Mignini's own words quoted in a reputable source, surely not impermissible "Just before the final summing up in the Knox appeal began, Mignini discussed his handling of an older case, the "Monster of Florence" serial killer, and his belief that his investigation of the 1985 death of a freemason, Francesco Narducci, that he linked to the case was mysteriously blocked.

I have felt under attack ever since I investigated Narducci," he told the Guardian. "It all started there." The Guardian, Monday 3 October 2011, Giuliano Mignini: Knox prosecutor who believes he is the conspiracy victim— Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs)‎11:16, October 14, 2011

Your 2nd source sums it up best: "While Mr Mignini's conviction has no direct bearing on the Kercher case,..." and as such is coatracking and off the mark here. This article is on the Kercher case and not Mignini. It shouldn't be mentioned and there are three of us so far which have stated these concerns.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I have Mr Mignini himself quoted as saying the criticism of him is part of a pattern stretching back to his investigation of the Monster of Florence (where Mignini was investigating the mystery death of chemist Francesco Narducci found drowned in a lake near Perugia in 1985 and who Mignini seems to believe Narducci ordered the serial killings. [2])
The Guardian, Monday 3 October 2011, Giuliano Mignini: Knox prosecutor who believes he is the conspiracy victim
"The criticisms will have come as no surprise to a man who has strongly believed for years that opponents were secretly plotting his downfall.
Just before the final summing up in the Knox appeal began, Mignini discussed his handling of an older case, the "Monster of Florence" serial killer, and his belief that his investigation of the 1985 death of a freemason, Francesco Narducci, that he linked to the case was mysteriously blocked.
"I have felt under attack ever since I investigated Narducci," he told the Guardian. :::"It all started there."
The 16-month sentence he received for abuse of office last year after he ordered unauthorised wiretaps during the Monster investigation was a trumped-up charge that fit the pattern of persecution, he has argued.
Mignini continues to work as he awaits his appeal, which starts on 22 November.
Mignini has claimed Douglas Preston, the US novelist who challenged Mignini's theories about the Monster of Florence, is masterminding a US press campaign against him over his handling of the Knox case. "It's all Preston," he said.
So it was unsurprising that Mignini should add a touch of conspiracy theory to his summing up in the Knox appeal, claiming that "our judicial system has been subjected to a systematic denigration by a well-organised operation of a journalistic and political nature"."
So to repeat. I'm not the one saying it is relevant Mignini is. Mignini is on record as claiming that the criticism of his conduct up until now including criticism of his conduct in the prosecution of Knox stems from his investigation into the death of Francesco Narducci. So it is highly relevant that although he thinks he did nothing wrong in the either the Knox or the Narducci cases he was convicted and sentenced to prison for what he did in the Narducci investigation. Overagainst (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually think it should be mentioned. But then again, it already is elsewhere in the article. I just don't think we need an entire section of the article devoted to bashing the guy on things that have no direct bearing on the case.LedRush (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Mignini isn't a Wikipedia editor (AFAIK) so he isn't saying that any of this needs to be in this article. This subject matter is tangential to the article subject...let alone BLP concerns. I would also like to hear what other editors think based on policies.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Certainly WP:UNDUE to grant this more than a brief mention. It would be better suited to an article about the Trials or an article about Mignini. If the extended content is included anywhere it would be important to note as a counterpoint that active prosecutors are often under investigation in Italy. Brmull (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an indipendent article for Giuliano Mignini has been created yesterday --Juanm (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP would apply to statements which are disputed or and/or not correctly sourced but it is has been reported in Europe and America that Mignini has been sentenced to prison for abuse of his powers.
Re. "This subject matter is tangential" Someone who comes to the Wikipedia article has a right to expect to find relevant information which was reported by the major newspapers covering the Murder of Meredith Kercher. Well the major newspapers covering the case have reported on Mignini being convicted and sentenced as part of their coverage of the case. These are not opinion pieces I am referencing but mainstream reporting of the case of the Murder of Meredith Kercher which is what the article is about. Information about Mark Fuhrman is relevant to the 'O. J. Simpson murder case' article and ought be included there as it is they are. The fact that undisputed information about Mignini was not an issue or aired in court during the trials does not make it irrelevant. In any other country it would have been impossible for someone facing the charges he was to be in charge of a prosecution because in the minds of most people it is highly relevant. That's why is has been reported by the papers covering the case: because people think it is very far from being tangential. Overagainst (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (After edit-conflict) That kind of content about Mignini belongs in his own article which is linked from this one if a reader wants to know more about him. The editors who wish to add such content should do it over there where it is not non-related and undue weight.TMCk (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
TMCk, did we just agree again? This is getting frickin' crazy. I'm starting to get scared.LedRush (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It is getting to be that season. Next, you will be agreeing with Tarc & John.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It's nice to know that you think mentioning this convicted felon is undue weight. However, this isn't really relevant to whether reliable sources have discussed these issues concerning the man in connection to the case. Would you like to delete all the information about the innocent woman in the article next, given she had nothing to do with the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher'? Nevard (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that as the legal processes take up such a large part of the article we should mention as highly pertinent to an encyclopedic article, How about this
"At the same time as he was leading the prosecution of Knox, Mignini was himself being tried for abuse of his prosecutorial powers in another case, in Jan 2010 he was given a jail sentence which he is currently appealing against."
Not mentioning these pertinent and widely reported facts would be rather misleading as to the equivalence of the position of prosecutors in Italy. Brmull, while it is indeed relatively (relatively compared to other western countries) common for Italian officials even prosecuters to be under investigation it is not, as far as I know, common for prosecuters to be convicted and sentenced to prison time. And it has been widely reported in coverage of the case. Overagainst (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
How did Mignini's conviction factor into the trial/appeal? Was that part of the decision? Opinion pieces from what may otherwise be reliable sources may indeed be irrelevant. They may be excluded at the consensus of editors...so yes, WP:UNDUE and a variety of other policies may trump the fact that sources are publishing opinion pieces. If it didn't factor into the final (so far) decision in the appeal then it is undue in this article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"How did Mignini's conviction factor into the trial/appeal?" Knox said at her trial that Mignini watched as officers slapped her around the head during the 14 hour interrogation. She was then charged with slandering a man who was about to be sentenced to prison time for abusing his power - by accusing him of abusing his powers. And she would have been back in the news being tried for slandering him convicted and given yet more time if it wasn't for the DNA review finding that the DNA evidence was worthless. Are you seriously suggesting that fact of the prosecutor being sentenced to prison for abuse of powers had no bearing on doubts about the conviction and the Italians' ordering of an independent review of the DNA evidence by a couple of Europe's leading forensic DNA experts (who happen to be Italians). I am puzzled why you think it is so irrelevant to the the subject of the article that it should not be mentioned. Telegraph Amanda Knox prosecutor convicted Daily Mail Amanda Knox's father welcomes jail term for Meredith Kercher murder prosecutor for 'corruption' Overagainst (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Knox did not say any such thing about Mignini at her trial. Now that the elation over the acquittal has settled down a bit it's time to start demanding that statements be verifiable again. Will you please source or retract that statement? Brmull (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
"'Do you remember? Do you remember? And then boom! On the head,' Knox said, mimicking the slap in court" Raffaele Sollecito says the polce hit him. Oh, and Lumumba also says the police hit him . The article says "Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was in the room conducting the contested interrogation where the misconduct by officers was alleged.[71][72]"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 October 2011‎ (UTC)

So, Mignini's involvement and conviction in another case doesn't factor into this one. The only part of the section I removed which applies to this article is "The case was led by Giuliano Mignini."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst, You said Knox testified that Mignini watched as officers slapped her. She did not say he watched. The statement in the article that "Mignini was in the room..." is misleading and I have campaigned vigorously to have it changed. Also, Sollecito did not say the police hit him. He was very vague in his recent allegations. Brmull (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A particular woman is named in newspaper reports of the courts testimony as denying she hit Amanda by the way. Amanda said that the woman who hit her was standing behind her and ... Mignini was back_ to_ back with the woman. Sorry, how obtuse of me. Is Mingini deaf, or did he think it was the sound of one hand clapping ? The policeman who headed the squad is already in the article. You can rest easy that Mr. Mingini is going to be mentioned in the article in due course, he is central to the case. I better work on it right now, thanks for reminding me Overagainst (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rudy Guede section

Rudy Guede section I propose altering the following text (I note there is much text in the section for which the only reference is -^ Burleigh 2011, pp. xxvi–xxvii ! If Burleigh's book is being objected to as a source then this vital section is going to need a lot o new ones, preferably those that can be easily verified)

"He was sentenced in October 2008 to 30 years' imprisonment, reduced on appeal in December 2009 to 16 years.[33]. At his appeal, he alleged that Knox had been in the apartment at the time of the murder, and that he had heard her arguing with Kercher.[34]"

It seems to me that the this text should be enlarged upon. Changes to his story between the trial and the appeal are difficult to follow here as it is not specifically stated that Guede said at his trial that Knox was not there at all. Moreover the different jail terms are similarly run together in one rather confusing (to me at least) sentence - "He was sentenced in October 2008 to 30 years' imprisonment, reduced on appeal in December 2009 to 16 years.[33]" It's difficult to follow. Why can't we have two short sections or even paragraphs. One about Guides trial and another about his appeal. Why have so much about Guides background and scoot though his conviction and appeal in a couple of lines? If this has to be covered in a couple of lines they need to be clearer, one sentence for the trial and another one for the appeal. Here is my suggestion- "At his trial Guede said that Knox was not in the apartment at all on the night of the murder, he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. At Guede's appeal he maintained his defense that a man had killed Meredith Kercher while he was out of the room but altered his story to claim Amanda Knox was in the apartment and had been arguing with Meridith, the court reduced his term of imprisonment to 16 years." That's clearer.Overagainst (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I can't see any reason to object to Nina Burleigh as a source. She's a reputable journalist, and her book is a good source of material. But I have no objection to your suggested addition. I agree that it's clearer. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Slim, her book is but one book and her Knox-as-feminist-martyr view is WP:FRINGE. I've read hundreds of books and articles and I can tell you this view is not representative. And the proposed text: "At his trial Guede said that Knox was not in the apartment at all on the night of the murder [WP:V - GUEDE DIDN'T SAY THAT], he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. At Guede's appeal he maintained his defense that a man had killed Meredith Kercher while he was out of the room but altered his story to claim Amanda Knox was in the apartment and had been arguing with Meridith, the court reduced his term of imprisonment to 16 years. [WP:SYNTH - FALSELY IMPLIES A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP]" Brmull (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
At his trial Guede said that Knox was not in the apartment at all on the night of the murder [WP:V - GUEDE DIDN'T SAY THAT],". That is no more significant an objection than complaining that he spoke in Italian so we must use that too in quoting him. It does not have quotes round it so the fact he did not use those words exactly is neither here nor there . At Guedes trial he most certainly did say that Knox was not in the apartment at the time of the murder . His story was that he believed Meredith Kercher and himself were alone in the apartment as they were having a romantic liaison together in her bedroom, he went to the toilet and she was killed by a male intruder while he was out the bedroom. At his trial Guede never claimed to have seen Amanda Knox or heard the voice of Amanda Knox in the apartment or anywhere else at the time of the murder. He testified to seeing and hearing one man only. Guides said Knox was not there at his trial. Here is an except from a Daily Telegraph journalist Nick Squires's report on the conviction of Guede "Guede had always claimed that he was in the house because Miss Kercher, a Leeds University exchange student, had agreed to have sex with him after the pair had met at a Halloween party the night before. A post-mortem examination on Miss Kercher's body confirmed that there had been sexual contact between the two, but was inconclusive about whether it was consensual or not. He said he went to the bathroom because of stomach pains, then heard Miss Kercher scream. Guede stumbled out of the bathroom and confronted a lone intruder, a man who he claimed looked like Mr Sollecito".


At Guede's appeal he maintained his defense that a man had killed Meredith Kercher while he was out of the room but altered his story to claim Amanda Knox was in the apartment and had been arguing with Meridith, the court reduced his term of imprisonment to 16 years. [WP:SYNTH - FALSELY IMPLIES A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP]" WP:SYNTH relates to facts which are not connected appearing one after the other. The account of Guede's appeal mentions the basic facts, at his appeal Guide did not change his defense, he altered his story only to say that Amanda Knox was in the apartment and arguing with Miss Kercher. The result of his appeal was that his sentence was cut from 30 years to 16 years. Are you trying to insist that the sequence of events (ie Guide's testifying at his appeal then receiving the results of his appeal) should not be described in the sequence in which they happened. How can you say that Guide's testimony at his own appeal is irrelevant to the results of that appeal? Overagainst (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brmull, that Knox was attacked in the particular way she was because she's a woman is not a fringe idea. Carole Cadwalladr, for example, makes the same point here in The Observer. You wrote elsewhere that Nina Burleigh's book should be viewed with scepticism because she's a radical feminist, but there's no evidence of that, and even if she were, it would make no difference. She's a good journalist, an adjunct professor of journalism at Columbia University, and used as a source by the mainstream media. In addition, her book was published in 2011, and we should be using the most up-to-date high-quality sources.

Which books about the murder have you read and would recommend?

Regarding SYN, material is only a WP:SYN violation if no source can be found for it, but the sources do make the connection between Guede suddenly accusing Knox in 2009 and having his sentence almost halved. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That would seem to be making the case that they aren't reliable sources then. His sentence being reduced had nothing to do with his testimony that implicated Knox & Sollecito. It was reduced because he elected to have a fast track trial 1 and because he apologized to the Kercher family.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
He didn't apologise for murdering her, the apology related to his claim of not being responsible. Guede still denies he had anything to do with it. So he apologised for not saving her from the killer. I am Dracula and I will drink your blood Overagainst (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That is irrelevant to my point. The court and not Mignini reduced his sentence because of his apology.ref Any sources which are implying that Guede's sentence was cut because, as SlimVirgin has suggested, he accused Knox will have made arguments for their exclusion from this article as being unreliable. This was a court decision and not a deal with the prosecution.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
So in Italy you can maintain your innocence while 'apologising' for not saving the life of the young woman you have been found guilty of horribly murdering and sexually assualting and they will take 14 years off your sentence. Pull the other one. The prosecution can raise objections or decline to raise objections to the defence submissions. They obviously didn't actively press for the sentence to be upheld. Giude will still be in his thirties when released. Quite possibly he will get out sooner. Mignini would have dragged him back on another charge and had time added on, he doesn't release his grip. He was going to try and get a few extra years added on Amanda Knox's sentence, how old would she have been by the time she got out then? Some doctor drew blood (hope the needle was cleaner than the CSI's gloves) and they told her she had HIV, then they sold her cofidential medical infomation to the newspapers and trawled throught her diary for things to use in the media. They put her in a cell with an aggressive lesbian, probably hoping for another payday from the media. She'd have been dead in a few more years in that jail,Take a look at Knox today He destroyed 20 families with his delusions in the Narducci case, persecuted for imaginary ties to the Monster of Florence case. As Preston said "Mignini's malicious and completely unwarranted accusations ruined many lives and impoverished the defendants and their families," Now the Kerchers have been impoverished by the expenses involved in attending and being legally represented in never ending trials of their murdered daughter's friend . He'd drag Knox back in even now but he sits still for Guede to get a ludicrously lenient sentence? No. Overagainst (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Bearean, you are arguing that the court knocked 14 years off a murder sentence, because the convicted killer refused to accept his guilt and would only apologize for failing to summon help. Anyway, we have to stick to the sources, and they do make the link between Guede suddenly accusing Knox and shortly thereafter having his sentence almost halved. We can describe that using in-text attribution. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm arguing that from his 30 year sentence, it was reduced to 24 to put it in line with the sentences Knox & Sollecito had received and that it is customary from what the sources say that 1/3 is taken off for electing a fast track trial (that is 8 more years of it). The court made the description which included that the reduction in sentence was partially based on his apology. That is what the reliable sources say as they are quoting the court.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Slim it's well-known that Angel Face and Darkness Descending are anti-Knox books and the others are pro-Knox. If you want the latest, John Follain's Death in Perugia will be published next week. Based on previews it looks to be more on the anti-Knox side, so it might be a good contrast to Fatal Gift. Brmull (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Which of the books have you read yourself, so that I know which sources we have in common? So far, I've read Dempsey, Burleigh, and Latza Nadeau. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've read Darkness Descending too. None of them straight through--too much repetition. Burleigh is the best written, and Nadeau is the most interesting in my opinion. I highly recommend the Massei Report and the Guede Cassation Report as well as the DNA report. The other sentencing reports are interesting but only available in Italian. Brmull (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you read Dempsey? I would recommend her book to anyone editing this article, because it's very clearly written and goes into a lot of detail without being excruciating. I've also read the Massei report, and I've glanced through the Guede one. I've added them to the References section so they're easier for readers to find. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I especially like how she paints the victim as a lush. And she think Schweppe's is an alcoholic drink. And she thinks Munich is the same thing as Monaco. Other than those types of errors she seems pretty reliable. Brmull (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You do have to be careful with Dempsey; she has a clear view of the case (even though her conclusion is accurate - i.e. they are cleared) and this colours the material. Because she is essentially writing propaganda in support of Knox. Critically, the prose is not very good - hurried, badly researched and often a little too emotive for my tastes. But of all the material on this case it is probably the best of a bad bunch (yet to see a good book on the subject). Taken with a careful dose of criticism it's not too bad for most details. --Errant (chat!) 23:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Guede had a fragment of glass from the window wedged in his shoe

Rudy Guede is jailed for 30 years "The key point of evidence against Guede was a bloody handprint on a pillow in Miss Kercher's bedroom which bore his fingerprints. A fragment of glass from a broken window was found wedged in the tread of his shoe, and his shoe prints were found in the house." Is the fragment of glass from the broken window embedded in Glede's shoe significant enough to be mentioned ? Overagainst (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He threw his shoes away in Germany so it in not possible to prove there was glass wedged in his shoes. Issymo (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
True, but he fact that there was a small piece of glass on the bedroom floor was discussed in secondary sources and deserves to be mentioned. Brmull (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a small piece of glass embedded in a print made by the sole of Rudy Guede's Nike 2 Outbreak tennis shoe on the floor of the bedroom. Meredith murder suspect Rudy Guede is an 'easy target' for accusations, say his lawyers. by Nick Pisa in Rome, 25 Oct 2008. "On Friday Sollecito's legal team said that a glass fragment found embedded in Guede's shoeprint at the scene proved that he had broken in. " He got a fragment of glass from the broken window wedged in the sole of his shoe as he came in, then the glass left the shoe to become embedded in the print made by the sole of his shoe as he walked inside the bedroom. Numerous shoe prints were found matching Guede's Nike shoe. Of course there was not a single shoe print matching any of the shoes which police had took from the houses of Knox and Sollecito. Guede claimed he did not break the upstairs window in the third bedroom of course but 5 days earlier, he had been caught afterhours in a Milan shool, with a laptop computer and mobile phone stolen from a law office burgled with a rock breaking through an upstairs window. Overagainst (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
In [http://www.amazon.com/Angel-Face-Student-Killer-Amanda/dp/0984295135/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318874172&sr=1-2#reader_0984295135 Angel Face (p. 166)] Nadeau says that no one was ever able to explain the glass on the floor, and speculates that it was from a liquor bottle. The important thing is to stay neutral or provide attribution, i.e. "Sollecito's legal team said...". I would favor simply saying that glass was found and the source was not established. Secondly, while it is technically true that none of shoe prints matched shoes found in the possession of Knox or Sollecito, a shoe print in Meredith's bedroom was found to be "compatible" with Knox. Brmull (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I started by providing a source which says quite clearly that the glass fragment in his footprint was evidence aganst him, and helped securre his conviction. I will not engage in debating a silly and very weakly sourced assertion. Overagainst (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

A. It has been suggested that all the documentaries need to be removed because they aren't cited. Is that correct policy interpretation?

B. Also, it has been suggested that all the books require cites above ISBN numbers. Is that a correct policy interpretation?

C. Finally, it has been suggested that amazon sales info is never acceptable to replace an ISBN number. Is that a correct policy interpretation?LedRush (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning A, I know of no policy that requires that and I think removing them isn't the best course of action. It is useful to have lists of works to help those who are studying the subject. The documentaries aren't for sale on the market and so couldn't be construed as advertising. Concerning B, (if I understand correctly) it would be best to have them as references which would lead to them being in the bibliography. If they aren't used as refs, they could feasibly be pulled. This comes from the guideline WP:BOOKSPAM. Concerning C, it is in the guidelines that ISBN is preferable over other forms of book annotations that lead one to a particular market. (See WP:ELNO #15 & WP:ISBN). I agree with that guideline.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't suppose you want to weigh in on the Amanda Knox article, where all of this information is being deleted as unsourced.LedRush (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Errant has stated on another article that the list of documentaries needs to be cited. Is there a policy which covers this? If not, do we delete the list or find cites?LedRush (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So, does silence mean that the policy support teh bibliography as is, or it doesn't? Or does it mean that no one cares or knows what the policy is?LedRush (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't require ISBN numbers, though it's best not to include self-published books, unless they're getting media or academic attention for some reason. The documentaries are fine; not sure why anyone would want to remove them. As for Amazon sales info, I wouldn't see any need to add that to a citation; it would look like promotion. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to remove the documentaries per-se. But it would be nice to have a cite to support their existence, their broadcast on the claimed network, and that they actually do cover the material. I mean I am sure they did happen :) but you never know. Unlike a book where you can drop an ISBN and that identifies it, we don't have a global identifier for documentaries... --Errant (chat!) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Meredith Kercher

Slim I don't think calling her Kercher so much sounds nice. Can't you use Ms. Kercher or something else occasionally Or even Meredith. Overagainst (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Afraid not, no. Wikipedia style guidelines states we use surnames only after the first use of a name - see WP:SURNAME. It's probably worth taking a couple of hours to make a detailed read of the manual of style. --Errant (chat!) 22:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Ms. is one of the English honorifics, titles are not forenames. Overagainst (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do read the linked manual of style entry; honorifics are not used either :) --Errant (chat!) 10:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I trust my instincts that it will strike people as a bit 'off' to follow those guidlines in this case. May I suggest the use of both names at the begining of the paragraph dealing with her death. It is a long article and one repetition will hardly go amiss.Overagainst (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In Italy one is presumed innocent until two appeals have been lost, until then the trial verdict is suspended

Simple Engish article states "Knox and Sollecito filed the proper legal documents to appeal their convictions, and they were still considered "presumed innocent" as if the previous trial verdicts were suspended." They don't give a specific ref I can see but I have read that in various other places. If this is acceptable source I propose there be an explanatory note about the verdict being suspended until two appeals are up and then there should be a section heading "Persons convicted under Italian law"Overagainst (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I object to the section title of 'People prosecuted', all that is going to do is confuse with all the names and scrolling back up and down. And it excudes Patrick Lumumba who says when he was arrested, he got slapped about and called a black so and so. Actually now I come to think about it Guede is the only one who didn't complain this police squad (which is the 'Seal Team 6' of the Italian police) didn't smack him about, and he is the only one who got time taken off his sentence, ( AK got it added on) and he is the only one who ran away (AK could have left for Germany, as concerned relatives suggested, quite easily). But I digress. A second objection: (and as I have got a cast iron ref for), the appeal process suspends the conviction. Only when the second appeal is lost is someone regarded as convicted in Italy. Hence The essential point is that Guede is the only one to lose two appeals and the only one who has been definitively convicted in Italian law. Allow me to propose a section

Persons no longer presumed innocent of the murder in Italian law.

Rudy Guede will be the only one in this section as far as I can see. It should be a full section. So the only person still in prison (because he lost both his appeals) and hence the only one who was actually convicted in Italian law gets his own section right under the murder section.Overagainst (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Too long; a heading needs to be short and factual. In addition the heading you propose is stressing a point a little too much. I quite like this new suggested heading - "prosecuted" is quite clear and factual, which broadly covers both those convicted and those no longer convicted. --Errant (chat!) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
'No longer convicted' would be who ? Rudy Guede is the only one I am aware of that has been convicted. Italian law is confusing and I think there needs to be a brief explanation of the 'status of a conviction in Italy' and how the presumption of innocence extends until the second appeal before anything else. It's deceptive to talk about 'convictions' and trials unless people know that from the beginning. I think its common sense that should be done before the convictions are mentioned anyway. Then the section heading will be.
Persons no longer presumed innocent of the murder
And that will save repeating when we mention Giuliano Mignini, we have already explain the status he enjoys makes the word 'convicted' quite different to what is meant by that word outside Italy; he is presumed to be innocent until losing his second appeal.Overagainst (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You should probably take a some time (unfortunately it may take quite some time :S) to read over the talk page archives, because we discussed this at some length for several weeks. The issue we have is a dire lack of clear sourcing (especially sourcing we can tie to this actual event, to avoid synthesis/OR issues) - however at some point we did manage to clearly source a section that clarified the way Italian law worked (although our sources said three appeals, not two). I appreciate that might have got lost in the churn, so I agree working it back in is a good idea (I've only been skimming the article whilst SV deep cleans it). But to be fair you keep mentioning "convicted" and our sections says "prosecuted" - which have clear and distinctly different meanings. Although the formal guidelines are deliberately vague we aim for concise headings.
I get, and generally agree with, what you are aiming for. But no short concise header hits me.. I was going to suggest "Investigated Individuals", but the alliteration feels messy. I've been mulling this for a few days now and I think we should carry on switching this to a purely chronological article - that way the top header can simply be "investigation" and we can intro the three people there before moving on to the investigation and trials. --Errant (chat!) 22:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think what your source meant was the trial was not what is meant by 'trial' in other countries. It is a three stage process. I knew that it was two appeals from casual reading of an article in my newspaper about the film that was made of the case (at a time when my personal opinions of the factual basis of the case were quite different, as they were up until a week ago). In the paper someone not sympathetic to Knox pointed out that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were still considered innocent and could sue the filmakers even though they were being held in prison. A chronological account would be very confusing as Mr. Lumamba Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were arrested first but Guede was tried first. Mr. Lumamba was the first to be cleared and Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were the last. The outcomes are the thing people want find out about. Overagainst (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said; you need to dig into the archives where we hashed this out in depth. In Italy you are convicted at the first trial, but not considered guilty until the final appeal is exhausted (this is all finicky terminology). I don't think that a per-trial account really works because a lot of the material crosses over or references each other. A chronology seems logical, and the standard way to approach it.. Knox/Sollecito & Lumamba arrested, Lumamba released & Guede arrested, Guede trial, K/S trial & Guede appeal, K/S appeal strikes me as the natural way to work through the event in sections. But if you have an alternative structure to propose, please feel free to detail it :) --Errant (chat!) 10:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
A chronological account would be Ms. Knox, Mr. Lumamba and Mr. Sollecito arrested first. Mr. Lumamba released. Then Guede arrested and tried then his appeal/ Trials of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito it will be necessary to explain Italian law on the status of a convicted person who has not lost their second appeal. The appeal is not automatic. It suspends the verdict of the trial I think.
The chronological approach has its merits though - Jan 16:Knox, Sollecito Trial begins. Nov 18: Guede's appeal begins. Nov 21: Prosecution requests life for Knox, Sollecito, and nine years' solitary confinement for Knox. Dec 4: Knox sentenced to 26 years, Sollecito 25. Dec 22: Guede's sentence reduced to 16 years.
Talk Archive from way back when can't be a guide now -for what should be obvious reasons.Overagainst (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently we deal with this under the K/S appeal (I wanted to put it in a short intro section to the trials & appeals but that structure is totally gone now). The relevant line is Under Italian law two appeals are permitted to defendants, during which there is a presumption of innocence until a final verdict is entered which was decided on as best conveying the fact. In this respect talk page archives (which in this case are recent) are important to understand the context of the current content and the discussion surrounding it - rather than me go over the discussion again it's easiest for you to read it and get up to speed :) p.s. not Mr. Guede?? ;) --Errant (chat!) 11:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I spent some time on this a while back and added (in this talk section) an extract from the Italian Constitution that sets this out. The constitution makes it very clear that persons charged are considered innocent until the end of the process. The information was ignored at the time by the controlling editors in residence who preferred to portray Amanda and Raffaele as being as guilty as possible regardless of the facts. You will find it if you go back and search for entries suffixed by by name. NigelPScott (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to have a summary-style section at the top explaining this aspect of the Italian judicidial system, and the role of the prosecutor. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

One of the problems is that there are still large numbers of sources from the early period of the case, though the reporting is now seen as faulty at best, and at worst was part of the character assassination that led to the wrongful convictions. This is like sourcing an article about the Guildford Four to newspaper reports from the 1970s. I think we should begin the process of replacing older sources with more current, high-quality ones, except where the older articles are being used as primary sources to discuss media reaction. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The best sources apart from court documents are major newspapers' and news organizations' reports of the testimony at the trials by on the spot reporters EG ANN WISE PERUGIA, Italy Dec. 1, 2009 Lawyer Says Amanda Knox Prosecutor Switched Motives "testimony of a court interpreter who said that on Nov. 4 she saw Knox in a waiting room at the police station. The witness, said Dalla Vedova, said Knox was pale, and looked ill and the interpreter was worried about Knox who said that she had not eaten or drunk anything all day."
The police videos on YouTube, (the ones below do not show the victim). Is there any doubt about the authenticity of these?
Here is the bathroom. This is actual crime scene video of the bathroom at Via della Pergola #7 taken within hours of the murder of Meredith Kercher
The bra clasp recovery Amanda Knox - 47 Days is a Long Time - The Bra Clasp Discovery It shows the dirty glove and has a US forensic scientist talking about how the evidence is not really evidence at all. This was before it was found that documentation attesting to the procedures followed in the forensic DNA examination did not exist and that the testimony of the forensic scientist on DNA in the case was worthless on those and other grounds. Overagainst (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of the media

Nice overview by Burleigh of the masterful manipulation of the media by the prosecution Tuesday 4 October 2011 Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher and the media

"As an American journalist covering the Knox case for 10 months in Italy, I was surprised by a number of things. I arrived assuming Knox was guilty, but within a month realised that most of what I'd been reading about – how she and her boyfriend were holding a mop and bucket at the door when the cops arrived, how her boyfriend googled "bleach", how her footprints were in blood, how her blood was "mixed" with Meredith's in the bathroom they shared, and how the authorities had proof that a break-in had been "staged" – had no basis in fact. Not only was it not in the record, authorities couldn't confirm it either. [...]What I found most surprising, though, was the way the journalists I worked with seemed hardly bothered by the problems with the case. And while everyone was focused on Amanda Knox, the "star" of the horrid murder theory, no one was doing journalistic due diligence into the background and criminal history of Rudy GuedeGiuliano Mignini, the Perugia prosecutor who led the investigation and original prosecution of the Kercher case, had recently plucked Mario Spezi, a Florentine newspaper crime reporter, out of his house and thrown him into solitary confinement for weeks after Spezi's investigation into the Monster of Florence case seemed to be deviating from the prosecutorial line. Mignini had also threatened an American novelist, Douglas Preston, in the same case, causing him to flee Italy, never to return. In the months after Meredith Kercher's murder, Perugia police also hauled in a local reporter, Il Giornale dell'Umbria's Francesca Bene, after she found witnesses with stories that cast doubt on the official theory in the Kercher case. Mignini also ordered a house search on a female Rome-based reporter for Mediaset, who had raised questions about the Kercher case early on. She never covered the case again." Overagainst (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 10 November 2007 Daily Mail Interesting early example of the coverage. Confidently makes assertions about the case of the "had no basis in fact" variety. Slanders the victim - wild speculation. Overagainst (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Reuters "With no contempt of court protections, the names and even photographs of suspects frequently appear in newspapers long before their trials while under the Italian system public prosecutors and judges often share offices -- meaning they can easily discuss cases before they come to court".
Not really like the Guildford Four newspaper reports from the 1970s. Anyone who lives in Britain has been exposed to publicity about the case that would be inconcievable for a British criminal trial and innaccuracy of the stories floated in the press is also inconcievable. The Guilford four got the publicity after their trial.Overagainst (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why Knox was first suspected : because she burst out crying !

Yup.

ref "CHICAGO (CBS)[3].And what was suspicious about Knox's behavior? What gave her guilt away? Giobbi pointed to three incidents. But a warning first: in true movie fashion, Giobbi is going to start sounding like a character in a Fellini film, where imagination is the same as everyday reality. The first "suspicious" Knox incident took place at the crime scene. Giobbi told Knox that he was going to the house next door to talk with people there and ask if anyone witnessed anything unusual the night of the murder. Immediately after hearing that, Amanda Knox broke down, sobbing uncontrollably. Giobbi thought Knox's reaction was troubling because there are no houses next door to the crime scene. So why was she so emotional? Giobbi believes it was because Knox had a guilty conscious.(conscience?) The second incident happened when Giobbi asked Knox to follow him into the apartment below the crime scene. Both Giobbi and Knox had to put protective covers over their shoes before entering. Knox got hers on first, and then showed off that fact by performing a hula-hoop motion with her hands on her hips and bragging about how she quick she'd been. To Giobbi, Knox's inappropriate, girlish behavior wasn't a sign of immaturity, but rather a peek inside the craven heart of a killer. The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. It occurred when the police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza. This so-called "meeting" helped convince Giobbi the couple had acted together in the murder. "Knox and Sollecito never had a chance," says Paul Ciolino, a CBS News consultant and Chicago private investigator. Ciolino was at the 48 Hours meeting with Giobbi in 2008, and says, "If I had not been there, hearing this for myself, I would have never believed Giobbi would actually believe that eating a pizza was probable cause in a murder case." Now Knox and Sollecito share murder convictions, which are both being appealed." Overagainst (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

DNA evidence

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.

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.

The essential part of this is the following "or was at best the result of contamination". The report goes much much further than saying that the testimony of the forensic scientist as to the DNA analysis is flawed because there could have been contamination from dirty gloves. "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.'" Overagainst (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian justice system

Any objection to renaming this "Italian criminal procedure"? IMHO the current title is too broad for the scope of the text. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)).

No that's fine. Dougbremner (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Done (Connolly15 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Prosecution and defence arguments

"The theory prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi first put forward for the motive in the murder involved a Satanic ritual orgy,[89][90] similar to the charges of belonging to a Satanic sect that Mignini had unsuccessfully leveled at 20 others in the Monster of Florence case.[91][92]"

Don't you think 'Satanic ritual orgy' sounds too journalistic, it'll be taken as hinting Mignini is a little mad. The fact is the forensics people told him that they had DNA evidence that K and S were there, and it turned out to be 100% wrong. It is more a case of the CSI effect than anything else. In fairness Mignini was being systematically misled by his chief investigator in the Monster of Florence investigation. The cop was the crazy one - he was sidelined given a desk job - but Mignini was allowed to continue in his post. He acted in good faith but should have weighed the plausibility of the information he was given more carefully - no matter how apparently impeccable the source. The similarity of the MOF with the first of the Kercher case arrests is not close because the original case was not that Knox had instigated the killing or welded the knife. It is conceivable that an impressionable girl would go along with a man she cared about in the aftermath of a killing. The point where Mignini should have wondered about his information in this case is when the DNA forensics people said Knox was the ringleader and welded the knife. A 5 foot 3 inch girl is not going to be ordering men like Guede around, and the sexual motive alleged had more pornographic fantasy than satanic ritual overtones. I think it would be totally unparalleled for a girl to kill that way, Shankill Butchers. Knox did not have the physical strength for doing what was alleged.Overagainst (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Their convictions were widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice"

We have talked extensively here about the use of the phrase "widely regarded" being weasel words and non-NPOV. I maintain that it is "widely regarded" that the acquittals were a miscarriage of justice. This issue has been thoroughly deliberated, it has been to mediation, it was finally fixed to most people's satisfaction--and now here we are again. Please remove. Brmull (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. There have been a number of high profile comments/articles criticising the acquittals and there was a near riot outside the courthouse. --FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have not read many articles at all, (in Italian or British press) which state that the acquittal was a miscarriage of justice (and calling the chants outside the courthouse a riot is farcical)). However, the language seems too strong, even to me. Of course, we could just restore the consensus language that BRmull cut out for no reason. That was actually sourced and accurate and reflected the article at the time. However, with the dramatic change in the nature of the article, it may be time to rework that concept entirely.LedRush (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
agree with above. Dougbremner (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Too strong, amend. Actually just remove this clause per WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like the "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice" language to remain, per BLP, because it reflects the views of the sources, and the lead as it was written did not explain how controversial these convictions were. Are there any high-quality reliable sources who continue to maintain that the Knox/Sollecito convictions were not a miscarriage of justice? If so, could someone post examples here? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 12:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • You seem to be confused about time here, Slim. Here, again, is the language we are discussing. "Their convictions were widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice, and were overturned on appeal in October 2011." See the word "were" in there? That tells us this is commenting on the past, so your question about "reliable sources who continue to maintain" something doesn't seem that relevant. Shall we stick to discussing the subject of the wording which forms the section heading of this heading? --John (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
      • John, are you saying that you support the claim that "their convictions are widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice"?LedRush (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I can tweak the tense to make that clear. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

These changes you have made to the lede are not NPOV, do not reflect consensus, and are absolutely unacceptable to me. I don't know how I can make myself more clear. Revert and we'll talk. Brmull (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide some high-quality sources who still maintain this was not a miscarriage of justice? I have looked but can't find any. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course I do, but I'm not interested in having a discussion using your consensus-violating edits as a baseline. You can't add them without discussion. You know that. Why don't you show good faith? Brmull (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've always considered this to be a worryingly sourced statement, one of the classic lead stormbringers. I think it is likely accurate (given the wealth of info), but our current sources are barely relevant to support the claim... if anything they constitute material that views the convictions as miscarriages of justice, but we sorely lack a source that simply says "this is widely considered a miscarriage of justice" - or words to that effect. As it stands, it's kinda synth. I've been picking up various sources that decry the release - but many of them are tabloid conservative press and the language of them makes me immediately cautious - I don't think we can reliably follow that line of prose. But a source that clearly supports the statement we make in the lead would be stellar. --Errant (chat!) 22:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a boss, like a Bureaucrat or something? How can you be stopped from desecreting this article whith such an outrageously POV statement that even Errant thinks you've gone too far? No one else is allowed to throw their weight around like this. You've been asked to revert your change and seek consensus. Would you like to go to DRN or to mediation? Brmull (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that would be necessary and it may be best to discuss here. SlimV is a reasonable person and has more of a reputation for improving articles than desecrating them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any sourcing for "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice"? There are certainly sources that, for better or worse, are indicators of public opinion and say the reverse: [4], [5]. More to the point, "miscarriage of justice" generally indicates a conviction that has no basis. But the decision of the court was on the grounds of reasonable doubt - they had the option of exoneration but declined it. Even the judge concedes that Knox and Sollectio may have been guilty [6]. --FormerIP (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: Brmll and Former IP have been posting anti-Knox material off-wiki. One comment from Brmull was somewhat abusive of her. Is it right that people who have become off-wiki activists against a living person (not a political figure or someone who wanted to become a public figure) should influence the content of this article? Looking through the talk archives I see it has made several editors uncomfortable, and I am beginning to feel the same way. I'm happy to work with anyone who has read the sources -- and Brmull I appreciate your attention to detail and desire for precision -- but I find it problematic that you want to sway the direction of the article and lead away from the views of the best sources. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Slim, stop making stuff up and play the ball not the editor. If it's not right for off-wiki activists to participate in the article, you have a lot of editors to topic ban (and I'm not among them). --FormerIP (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If that's what it takes, we should do it. There shouldn't be any activists editing this article, and particularly not when they have recently made abusive comments about Knox. The article has been problematic for a long time. There have been on- and off-wiki complaints, at least one mediation, and complaints to Jimbo. The article must reflect the views of the high-quality sources, whatever direction that goes in. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. And for the most part, SV, I find the work you've done on the article brilliant. However in this case you seem to be staunchly ignoring the point I am making about our sourcing problem. I don't know why we are running down the road of "if it's not widely regarded as a miscarriage it must be widely regarded as a good conviction still, please source this". That's patently nonsense, and it is a bit tiring that it has been brought up as a counter point. My criticism still stands; the statement is not adequately sourced. --Errant (chat!) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not in citation given

Errant, as you know, we don't need a source that says the exact words "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice." I've supplied a selection of sources who say things to this effect, and could provide dozens more. There are no high-quality sources that I know of who are still arguing that Knox and Sollecito did it. There is no evidence against them, none at all. If there are good sources saying otherwise, please produce them here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've given notable sources above that say the opposite. We report the controversy. --FormerIP (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you post the citations here, please? I can't find them. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
They're 7, 8 and 9, above. --FormerIP (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
7 doesn't say the opposite, it says that Knox probably knows what happened that night. 8 does indeed say the opposite (of course, Nancy Grace be crazy). 9 doesn't say the opposite, and actually has more support for the statement that the first conviction was a miscarriage of justice than the opposite. So we're left with only Nancy Grace giving an interview from the set of Dancy with the Stars. That doesn't mean we should include the statement as written, but we should discuss with all the facts on hand.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, we can dance around with semantics if you like. The sources that don't say the opposite do say things that are clearly inconsistent with the phrase "miscarriage of justice", and one of them is from the actual judge in the case. We can't, particularly without any citation to back it up, report public reaction to the verdict in a way that is so clearly at odds with reality. --FormerIP (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see this as semantics, I see this as reading what the articles say. One says the innocent verdict is a miscarriage of justice, one says that the current verdict is definitely right and suggests that anti-american thinking may be responsible for any backlash, and one says that the verdict shouldn't be celebrated even though the innocent verdict was probably correct. Only one article supports your claim, and none of them would argue persuasively against the current language.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the sources are not sufficient. For two reasons. The first is that "miscarriage of justice" is quite a specific and strong term, and it would be nice to see it actually used in a source for us to make use of it. Secondly and more crtical - those sources are sources which contest the trial. Which is fine - as a group they may constitute "widely regarded". However what none of them do is make the statement that the trials are widely regarded in some way. This is what we lack - a source that comments on these sources and notes that the trial is widely regarded in a certain way. Supporting such a statement with examples of sources which regard the trial in that way is OR. To be clear; you need a source which notes both that the trial is regarded by sources as a miscarriage of justice (or something to that effect) and that it is widely held to be so not a collection of sources that regard the trial is a miscarriage --Errant (chat!) 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This interpretation of the citation is not consistent with how most articles view this, or with how we viewed these types of statements on this very article. However, the statement does appear to strong to me. Rather than fighting over the sources, why aren't we looking for a compromise. Why not say "many media outlets and commentators have described the initial conviction/trial/whatever as a miscarriage of justice"? We can through in that Nancy Grace says Knox is guilty as sin (she be crazy, but she be notable, too).LedRush (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Still lacking something that ties it all together with the "many". This is the problem; there are masses of pro- and anti- Knox reports out there. In general the tabloid media are anti-Knox (the Mail all but said she was guilty as sin and blinded the courts :S) and the liberal media are more supporting of the overturning of the conviction. We lack anything to assess and balance this and specifically conclude where public opinion rests. It is this last that we are most lacking in this case. It's a problem that occurs a lot in situations like this where we try to record public opinion based on recent news media. I am honestly not able to find a source that summarises this. --Errant (chat!) 15:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • People.com and Nancy Grace are tabloid sources. I am requesting high-quality sources, particularly from writers who have studied this, who continue to maintain this was not a wrongful conviction. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I swear to fucking god no one is listening to me... --Errant (chat!) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Possibly not, ErrantX.
So, it's okay to have "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice" on the basis of no sourcing, but to demonstrate that in actual fact contrary views are prominently held I need, what, a peer-reviewed criminology journal? However trashy Nancy Grace may or may not be, she is obviously a significant public commentator, as is Bill O'Reilly. And the views of the actual judge in the case probably ought to be relevant. --FormerIP (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course, O'Reilly and the judge support the innocent claim, not the opposite. And there are tons of citations for "miscarriage of justice". But other than that...
But rather than focus on that, can we focus on compromise language, like what I've suggested above.LedRush (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
What errant says is correct, I think. There are masses of pro and anti reliable sources out there. Maybe a settled view will become clearer in the longer term. What's also factually correct that the verdict was not an exoneration, it was an acquittal on the basis of reasonable doubt. Our article should not attempt to obscure that by appealing to a supposed consensus of public opinion that cannot be reliably sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Though I still contend that the "widely" or "many" language is often perfectly fine without finding those exact words in citations, and while I understand that the verdict was an exoneration based on the fact that she was found "innocent" and not "not guilty" (I understand both are options under Italian law), I think Errant and Former IP are probably right that we could let the dust settle more before making such claims. However, it's probably not a bad idea to stockpile sources now for the inevitable fight down the road.LedRush (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Though I still don't see a problem stating newspapers like (name them) and commentators like (name them) have said that the initial trial was a miscarriage of justice (or some other more generic term).LedRush (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes; I agree that any source does not have to specifically say "many" or "widely" exactly. Just summarise what the media view is - or at least mention something about how it is viewed. None of the sources do that, unfortunately. --Errant (chat!) 15:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And yes; adding in some attributed views (probably in the media section mostly) would be good. We can source both sides I suspect. --Errant (chat!) 15:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Egan is not a source for the miscarriage of justice statement and is being misconstrued. He actually could be used to lend balance because what he says is "One camp sees a beautiful killer walk free, backed by a global media cabal that had initially turned her into a villainous cartoon. Another sees a gross miscarriage righted, a victory that should not diminish the memory of the victim. His personal view and the view of three others does not constitute "widely regarded". He does not state that this is how the trial is widely regarded. This proves Errant's point. I think we need to remove the statement until consensus may be reached.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Some further thoughts

I worry we are falling into the trap of sourcing and arguing over wording in the lead, and ignoring that the discussion should really be over how to summarise article content (the statement currently is not in the article).

I think this ties back to our media section - which we could now expand. Ideally we need to document the changing media views of the case over the course of the last few years, tied off by reaction to the release (both positive and negative). Ideally from sources that summarise the reaction rather than reaction itself.

I also question the placement of this statement in the lead - right after the mention of the appeal conclusion, it appears to be soap-boxing a tiny little bit on the whole innocence thing. Especially as it does not relate specifically to the appeal but the whole trial. I suspect we would be better off shifting it to the start of the next paragraph as an introduction to how the trials were viewed in the media (with adequate sourcing to support that this was the prevailing media view) and expanding into various changing views (reflecting the media section).

Suggest:

  • Need a source that states this was the widespread view of the case
  • Need to expand the media section with new material
  • Summarise that new section in a couple of sentences to replace Para 3., including this statement

Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 15:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the media section needs to be rewritten. Unfortunately it will take quite a bit of writing. I'm currently working on a laptop with a small screen and a sticky keyboard, so I feel as though I'm peering at the article through a keyhole. And every time I try to write "said," I get "sad," and "sticky" is "sicky," etc, so this is slowing things down my end somewhat. But if anyone else wants to have a go at that section, that would be very helpful.
I can't agree that the lead can't say this was seen as a miscarriage of justice until the media section is expanded. It was and is very clearly seen that way. I've asked several times for high-quality counter-examples, and so far all that has been offered are Nancy Grace, people.com, and Bill O'Reilly. I also can't agree that we have to find the words "miscarriage of justice"; I'm sure a source is out there, but it's just not necessary. If a thousand high-quality sources are writing about the convictions scornfully and angrily -- and no high-quality sources are supporting the convictions -- it would be obtuse of us not to be allowed to summarize that as "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice." WP articles shouldn't be quote farms. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the sentence to read: "Their convictions were overturned on appeal in October 2011, when a jury decided there had been a miscarriage of justice," and supplied a source (Telegraph) that says this directly; several other sources reported it using the same language. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Better, for sure :) Thanks. (Also that source handily mentions the counter views too in the next paragraph). If a thousand high-quality sources are writing about the convictions scornfully and angrily -- and no high-quality sources are supporting the convictions -- it would be obtuse of us not to be allowed to summarize that as "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice."; I strongly disagree - because this is our judgement/research/view and thus is inappropriate. Agree on the quote farm, but that is not the only alternative. In the absence of a clear source which summarises the various views/opinions and how widespread they are we can quite happily say there were varied views, explain what they were and give a couple of relevant examples. --Errant (chat!) 17:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely false. The jury didnt declare any miscarriage of justice. The appellate jury simply declared Knox and Sollecito not guilty of the Murder of Meredith Kercher and other accusations. This is widespread in the media and this should go in the lead. The exact quote from the Telegraph is "A jury decided that Amanda Knox, who has spent almost four years in jail, was the victim of a miscarriage of justice following a chaotic Italian police investigation." This is maybe an explanation of the sentence by Nick Pisa, but clearly not what the court stated. The proposed and actual sentence is far more misleading than the previous one.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's sneaking journalistic comment into the lead as if it were fact, when it is plainly the opposite, which can be seen from the comments of the judge, that the prosecution was proper and that Knox and Sollecito may be guilty [7]. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it from the lead as it was totally inappropriate as written. However, FormerIP's assertion is troubling, when the judge has ruled that Knox is innocent (not "not guilty") and publicly criticized the work of the lower court and prosecution. Of course, that doesn't mean he thinks the initial trial was a "miscarriage of justice", and I would be shocked if he ever made any such statement.LedRush (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been inappropriately threatened with a topic ban by the above admin for my alleged views outside of wikipedia. The admin in question has taken OWNership of the article and has made virtually all edits over the last few days. It should be noted that most of my fairly timid (although characterized as "activist") factual corrections were accepted. However, a typical edit that was rejected is here. In this case, a statement that was dubious and not sourced was restored with the edit note "i'll find a source later". This admin uses two pro-Knox books to source virtually everything. Many of the quotes about living persons are single-source from these books. Two other books which are less favorable to Knox no longer appear as sources at all. The admin refused to follow proper protocol and revert their controversial lede edit pending discussion. Finally, faced with overwhelming opposition, still refusing to follow proper protocol, substitute language was inserted without discussion. This has now been appropriately removed and I hope we can proceed with a civil discussion about what, if anything, should be said in the lede regarding media or public opinion of the case. In the case of public opinion, in the U.S., a Rasmussen poll after the verdict showed 44% agreed with the verdict and 11% disagreed, with the rest unsure. Brmull (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
OK lede edit, for anyone who wants to talk about this. My objections to the lede edit I reverted are 1)As the jury reversed the decision of a trial you must accept that they decided a miscarriage of justice had taken place. Being found innocent is quite different. That would cover an accquital at trial but this was an appeal. If an appeal reverses the verdict of a trial then the trial reached the wrong verdict. Hence when an appeal succeeds it is because the courts decide there has been a miscarriage of justice. Miscarriage of justice "A miscarriage of justice primarily is the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit".
2) "Also charged were Amanda Knox, an American exchange student and flatmate of Kercher, and Knox's then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student. Knox and Sollecito were convicted of sexual assault and murder in December 2009, and sentenced to 26 and 25 years respectively. Their convictions were overturned on appeal in October 2011, when a jury found them innocent of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher.[2]" Do you think that is a well worded couple of sentences . I don't. I think most people will notice that 'sexual assault and murder' is repeated and wonder why there is such clumsy wording of a Lede which is supposed to be a summary. I can't think of why anyone would want repetition in a summary. Overagainst (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Brmull, but nobody has ever heard the kind of things about a British or American defendent pre trial that they heard in this case. Overagainst (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I mean they didn't have a waver saying you are about to hear all about the bad character of the defendents in a trial because that's only because they are being tried in Italy and our protections don't apply. People (including me I am very ashamed to say) naturally assumed that only very bad people would be having so many bad things said about them. People don't realize that it was only because they are being tried in Italy where the prosecution can float all kinds of rumors with impunity.Overagainst (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that Overagainst was just blocked for edit-warring to push "miscarriage of justice" into the lede against consensus.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Article currently says "The Italian Court of Cassation later found that Knox's human rights had been violated, because the police interrogators had not told her of her legal rights, appointed her a lawyer or provided her an official interpreter; therefore, her statement to police was ruled inadmissible for Knox's and Sollecito's criminal trial.[62][74][75]" later it says "Both trials had the same jury that had heard Knox's confession.[76]" I propose replacing the second statement with the following ""The same jury that had been allowed to hear Knox's unlawfully obtained false statement in the slander case was subsequently to decide her guilt on the murder charge.[76]" Overagainst (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. I think this is unnecessary as the way it is written is clear. The proposed edit would make it easy for a reader to infer that the jury relied on (or was influenced by) the inadmissible statement in determining guilt, which is not proven (or suggested) by the CNN source. It is not uncommon for evidence to be ruled inadmissible in a criminal trial but be relied on in a civil law suit as the rules of evidence are different. The only quirk (from a strictly Common law perspective) is that the same jury heard both trials. Although this is noteworthy (and is clearly stated) a reader should not infer bias in the jury just because a legal system is different than their own. There are safeguards built into Civilian legal systems that are not present in the Common law system. For example, judges sit with the lay members of the jury in deliberations and advise on legal aspects (for example, that they should disregard the inadmissible statements).
By the way, the section you reference also states, "... However, the court allowed the statement to be used in the concurrent civil, calunnia trial, in which Lumumba prevailed against Knox. Both trials had the same jury that had heard Knox's confession." This is factually incorrect as I have previously said calunnia is a criminal charge not the equivalent of tort. I think this error crept in when someone did a word replace of defamation with calunnia. In this paragraph defamation would be more appropriate as it was a civil suit. Her criminal conviction of calunnia was later upheld - but they are different legal matters. (Connolly15 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC))
I am confused, did they give her prison time for saying that she was hit while Mr, Mingini was in the room or not?
They did not, she receievd a 3 year prison sentence for falsely accusing Lumumba. You are confusing different legal issues that are quite separate.(Connolly15 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)).
Was that the only time added on? Is it common for those kind of charges to be brought against someone who incriminates. I'm not being smart I really want to know. Also the charges relating to slandering/defaming the police, how common are they in this kind of case and could they have resulted in more extra time added onOveragainst (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
As part of the first trial she was also convicted of calunnia and sentenced (this is why her original sentence was 1 year longer than Sollecito's as he did not commit calunnia). At the appeal the conviction was confirmed and she was sentenced to 3 years. The crime of calunnia carries a maximum sentence in Italy of 6 years. As she had already served almost 4 years in prison, she was released immediately. It is a common element of both civilian and common law legal systems that if you go to the police and tell them that X did Y, and you have no reasonable reason to believe it is true, that you could be tried and convicted of a crime. In the U.S. this would be considered obstruction of justice, in the U.K. Perverting the course of justice. As to how often these types of charges are laid, I can't give any statistics, but the police / prosecutors don't look favourably on people accusing others without any reason as it is a waste of police resources (indeed, in this case Lamumba was arrested and investigated). I imagine how serious the accusation is (in this case murder) and whether the police act on the accusation or not (in this case they did) will have a bearing on whether a prosecution is brought. The charges relating to slandering the police (also calunnia, she effectively accused the police of committing a crime) are separate and did not form part of the first trial because she said them during that trial during her testimony. The police-related calunnia trial was to start 17 May 2011, but was delayed until 15 November 2011 ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13423074 ) because of her (at the time) ongoing appeal in the murder case. I haven't been keeping track of this second trial, but I highly doubt she will be attending now that she is in the U.S.. Her parents have also been charged with calunnia for repeating what Knox said about the police (again, effectively they accused the police of committing a crime - in this case it is even worse since they could not have witnessed it). This trial was due to start 4 July 2011, but I am not sure what happened in the case as I have not followed it closely, obviously it has been pushed back for some reason. Theoretically, Knox could be convicted and sentenced for more time in prison relating to this charge as well as her parents, though highly unlikely the U.S. would extradite them IMHO. Of course, effectively being on the run from the Italian prison system might keep them from visiting for a little while.(Connolly15 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC))
Hmm, I knew that it is a very serious thing to be denounced in some legal systems and it's understandble that the penalty for false allegations is greater. But I don't think you could make an analogy with making false alegations in Britain. The allegation was made in an official statement. If a sworn statement had been legally adjudged to have been improperly obtained (Knox's was} in Britain you would never be charged with perjury for making the allegations it contained, it is most unlikely they would charge you with Perverting the course of justice either. It seems to me the Italian system lets prosecuters switch feet between criminal and civil proceedings.Overagainst (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me the Italian system lets prosecuters switch feet between criminal and civil proceedings. - Calunnia is not a civil proceeding, by definition civil proceedings do not involve a prosecutor, calunnia is a crime and involves a criminal proceeding. In criminal trials courts can order restitution to be paid to the victim, as it was in this case (also happens in the UK). There is no requirement for calunnia (or perverting the course of justice) that the statement be given on oath. This is dealt with on page 19 of the Massei Report - essentially, the statement was excluded from the murder trial because her right to a lawyer, interpreter, etc were violated (the statements of course contained a lot more than her accusation against Lumumba)- but, under Italian law, this does not exclude the statement for evidence of calunnia because her accusation again Lumumba was a "spontaneous declaration with defamatory intent" (i.e. the police did not suggest to her that Lumumba did it, she came up with that on her own). The key here is that the law differentiates between illegitimate collection of evidence and spontaneous declarations. A similar thing exists in the UK - normally statements to a police officer are inadmissible unless you have been "cautioned" (a legal warning of your rights essentially); however, this does not apply to spontaneous declarations. In this sense, if I were detained by the police and not cautioned and I was asked about my involvement in the murder of X and I spontaneously (without suggestion of the police) admitted to stealing something from Y, that statement could be used against me even though I wasn't cautioned and my statements on the murder of X would likely be inadmissible. In the same way, if you are given immunity by a prosecutor from a crime you have committed to testify at a trial but then admit to another crime during your testimony, you would be charged and your testimony can be used against you (this has happened before). Rules of evidence are very complex in every legal system, but I can assure you that in this specific example the rules are not that different than the UK. (Connolly15 (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
The essesntial point is "Although this is noteworthy (and is clearly stated) a reader should not infer bias in the jury just because a legal system is different than their own." Riiight and that is why Amanda and Boyfriend were the first to be arrested but the last to be tried is it. Their legal system is different and I do not envy those who live under it
This is a biased perception of the legal system. Guede was convicted first because he opted for a different legal procedure, Knox and Sollecito also could have opted for this and did not, if they had there would not have been the difference in time. "Their legal system is different and I do not envy those who live under it" - this is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it but Wikipedia is not a proper venue for you to voice it to the public. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)).
Well I went over the top there, I have been thinking about this and no justice system is perfect. The Italian system works well as long as everyone does their job, that's true of all systems. Mignini is a honest man doing his job I think.Overagainst (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


Here is something to think about: If the Rudy Guede was a lone burglar who managed to overpower and kill Meredith At his original trial (where he claimed to have broken off a consensual petting session to rush to the toilet and returned to find Meredith dead, tried to help her then panicked and fled) it was in his interest to say that he had touched MerEdith while she was naked thus explaining the DNA. The investigation was clearly targeting Knox and Sollecito. He could have so easily finessed his story to explain things but he got a deal to implicate Knox and Sollecito while helping his own case. He was a lone burglar/murderer. A lone burglar/murderer facing a murder conviction. Overagainst (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we step away from our own speculation please. It's not appropriate; and if this is informing your work here then you need to stop, because it is strongly discouraged to let your own views influence work. This has been a perennial problem with this article. --Errant (chat!) 13:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't explain very well admittedly but you're missing the point. Guede had the chance to bring off a variation on the old 'we had sex I split and some other guy killed her defence' All he had to say was that went to the toilet and went back into the bedroom to find her bleeding and stripped naked but not yet dead and she got blood all over him and he touched her pillow, disguarded clothing as he was trying to help. Then he split. The perfect defence. Maybe he was too stupid to think of it. Or maybe there is another reason. Deals are made, 'you run that defence and we will ask for the max'. Speculation seemed to favour the prosecution every time, There was speculation in the media during his trial that he was worried that Knox and S had a pact against him. Do you object to me talking about that rumor and speculation (which in fact is just another example of Mingini's extremely clever use of publicity against the defense) or is it only when the speculation goes against what you want to be true. He is the only one who has recieved a definitive conviction - in ITALIAN LAW, THAT IS THE SYSTEM. (Amanda won her second appeal while she was still presumed innocent). Under Italian law the verdict is suspended until the appeal fails them you get another one and if that is lost you are officially no longer presumed innocent. Amanda & S won the second one. Guede is the lone two time appeal loser, just as he was a lone burglar/murderer.Overagainst (talk)
Fo the first; no I don't give two craps about any "truth". But you are speculating and theorising, and you need to stop. Suggesting people are "too stupid" is very close to the bright line of WP:BLP problems. For the second; yes I agree, and the article reflects that this is how the system works. We worked long and hard to establish that in the prose. --Errant (chat!) 19:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"We worked long and hard to establish that in the prose" I found the way the text covered the appeals highly confusing. The text which covered Guede's sentence at trial and his appeal was extraordinarily convoluted. Work long and hard at making things clearer pleaseOveragainst (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, things have jiggled around a lot since the last "stable" content. SV is doing an excellent job at stiching the current material back together IMO --Errant (chat!) 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Bilingual police interrogations

Common Reactions Students abroad speaking a second languge experience mental fatigue for the first few months.

Negotiation and communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations: a critical interactional sociolinguistic perspective " A microanalysis of the custodial interrogations of three Latino young men accused of serious crimes demonstrates that when both the detainee and the police interpreter have insufficient proficiency in L2, the outcome is negotiation and communicative accommodation; however, such efforts aimed at communicating successfully are made primarily by the interlocutor who has less power in the interaction, the detainee. Even when both interlocutors are fluent bilinguals, the outcome is adversative for the detainee: unable to perform both interrogator and interpreter roles simultaneously, the police detective imposes pressure on the suspect to answer questions in English, despite the suspect's repeated efforts to switch to Spanish

Coerced confessions: the discourse of bilingual police interrogations

Knox clashes with interpreter over Meredith 'confession' Knox quoted the interpreter as saying that "probably I didn't remember well because I was traumatised. So I should try to remember something else". [...] "Under cross-examination she (Anna Donnino) described her role as that of a 'mediator' rather than a mere translator of words."Overagainst Overagainst (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Anna Donnino, the police interpreter" She happens to speak English. As you can see above she did not does not see or describe herself as an interpreter. As far as I can see she functioned as part of the team of interrogators.

She is certainly not an accredited interpreter for the purposes of an interview, which is a human right in Europe the interview was improper without an offical interpreter. Interpreting is hard work and would break up the questioning, teams of detectives were involved and Donnino would have become exhausted long before 14 hours. Biligual interrogations tend to evolve into the suspect speaking in their second language. I think there is good reason to think Knox was speaking Italian for much of the interview . And she contradicts Knox on every detail of the interrogation.

Seattle Post Intel. "Anna Donnino, the interpreter who assisted during the interrogation, said she tried to establish trust with Knox, who was struggling to offer investigators a credible defense. Donnino told the suspect that she once broke her leg in an accident but suffered so much trauma she couldn't remember anything about it afterward. But Knox said her interpreter's "traumatization" was actually used to pressure her. "Ms. Donnino then later suggested that ... perhaps I didn't remember well because I had been traumatized, and so I should try to remember something else." "And then there were these slaps to the head that I really did receive," she said. "I'm sorry, but it's true." Donnino repeatedly testified that Knox wasn't hit, threatened or otherwise mistreated during the all-night questioning session. She said they took breaks and were served hot drinks and food" Overagainst (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Overagainst. You're posting huge amounts of material here on the talk page, gathered from all around the web, plus your own thoughts and interpretations of it. Are you suggesting that sections such as this one should form part of the article? If not, what are these sections for?  pablo 09:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I will leave it to those with the stamina to go though your past contribitions to this talk page and decide which of us has been posting huge amounts of 'thoughts and interpretations' on this page. I have been here how long ? I have edited the actual page how many times? And you ? And your contributions to the discussion page are how many ? This is a discussion page and I am posting relevant newspaper reports of court testimony which, I would hope you understand, are the most relevant thing that one could post. References for discussion. Please do not attempt to inhibit discussion. Some are academic work on the subject such as could be cited on any article. It is quite absurd for you to complain (you are complaining ) about a series of news reports of testimony which I have abreviated in almost ever case . Links do not take up any space at all and when I give relevant excepts which are usually short this is an assistence to the reader. The things I have posted on are almost entirely central to the case: why Knox became a suspect, Knox's interview and the DNA evidence. I post short excepts from newspapers reporting court testimony and you call it a huge amount of opinion. An administrator is not on the article because of anything I have been doing.
I started a section on the interrogation and advanced the veiw that Anna Donnino was not what European law calls a proper interpreter."As you can see above she did not does not see or describe herself as an interpreter." is that an opinion or a fact?
"She is certainly not an accredited interpreter for the purposes of an interview" is that a opinion or a fact? Overagainst (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
So - what, out of all that, do you suggest is needed to be added to the article? pablo 12:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for things to be added

1. Amanda Knox's height (and possibly weight) and the height of Guede - very important addition IMO.
2. An incident which took place at the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body, when Amanda Knox broke down, sobbing uncontrollably in front of the policeman, Giobbi.(source In February 2008, 48 Hours met with Giobbi)
3.It should be mentioned there are suggestions that early on the police had forensic evidence (which they kept quiet) that led them to look for someone of African ancestry.Overagainst (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh I see. Thank you. 1) height and weight - sourced how? 2) A woman cries, knowing her friend is dead - which tells us what? That she cried. 3) I think that facts are more relevant here than suggestions.  pablo 17:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
1)Sources from prison records or with qualification what has been stated in the media, it could be said that she is not of above average height and is not strongly built. 2)What it tells us is very little for sure but the shifting assertions of the police as to why they suspected Knox are no more 'facts' than the assertions of Steve Moore and that is doubly true now. If Steve Moore suggests something it can be included in the article as long as it is clearly identified as being an assertion by the Knox camp. They do suggest what happened to Amanda Knox was little to do with her supposedly odd demeanor or behaviour at the scene in the aftermath of the discovery of the body of Meredith Kercher. (Actually she broke down sobbing uncontrollably, Giobbi, the chief investigator told this to 48Hours in 2008). The police wanted credit for being perceptive and claimed to have suspected her. 3)Some who have a law enforcement background say there is reason to think she got into this through(still withheld) forensic evidence that a Black man was involved, it is said to be head hairs. The Knox camp have always said there is withheld evidence. Lumumba the African owner of a bar where she worked sent her a text to say she was not needed. She sent him a reply 'See you later, good evening' the night of the murder. The police, who always check texts, mobiles and emails when investigating serious crime, connected her to the murder through this connection to a black man. When they brought her in for the final 14 hour interrogation Knox says they insisted they'dproof that Lumumba was the murderer and that she had been present. The trouble was that the certain policemen didn't do their job in checking for other men of African ancestry who were connected, as Guede was having had visited the Italians in the downstairs apartment of the house. Overagainst (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to correct something that is easily misunderstood - "European law" (that is the law of the European Union) does not presently require an interpreter to be present, this is in fact the subject of a proposal by the European Commission ( http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/criminal-rights/index_en.htm ). It may be a matter of human rights to have access to an interpreter, but this is governed by a separate piece of law (European Convention of Human Rights) which is not related to the law of the European Union. A violation of European Law is very different than a violation of the ECHR. I only mention this in case edits are made to the article which incorrectly refer to European law. Thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)).

Thanks it is good to have these things picked up on by someone who knows. Overagainst (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Giuliano Mignini

I have nominated the article Giuliano Mignini for deletion, discussion here. As this is the only article that links to him, I felt it was appropriate to raise the deletion on the talk page. I have suggested some of the content on that page be added to either this article or Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (if it continues to exist). Thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

"Article lacks any verifiable biographical information because it is not publicly available". Are you worried about the article being prejudicial to his appeal against the jail term he has been sentenced to ? There is no contempt of court law in Italy. It is a pity that Mr. Mignini was not as careful of his name and reputation as you are of it. He might have weighed the evidence and questioned the plausibility of the information he had been given. I feel certain that there are going to be publicly available sources on Mr. Mignini very soon. He will be mentioned in articles and books and maybe even portrayed in a film. There may be a delay while an actress beautiful enough to play Ms. Knox is found Overagainst (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." WP:NOTSCANDAL ... I am merely concerned that a "biographical article" that only cites the criticisms of someone's career is merely an attack and not a true biography which meets Wikipedia's guidelines for Wikipedia:BLP. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so maybe we should wait for those sources to be published before writing the article. I would encourage you to voice your opinion here however, not on this talk page. I merely posted here to bring the deletion notice to greater attention. (Connolly15 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC))
Wikipedia articles should mention the known facts about noteable subjects. It is not so difficult to do Mignini's job without making serious errors of judgement, other prosecuters in Italy manage it. Mignini is noteable, for actions which are widely regarded as discreditable. Reporting that fact is not the same thing as attacking him. There are reliable sources for those assertions already extant, for example it is widely reported he is in the last stages of an appeal against a prison sentence for abuse of power. Nothing I wrote was an opinion. Overagainst (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, please place your comments in the deletion discussion or they won't be considered. I am not questioning his notability (although others in the deletion discussion are) - I have made this clear. It is not so difficult to do Mignini's job without making serious errors of judgement, other prosecuters in Italy manage it. - if you read any Italian press about wire tapping in Italy, you would quickly change your opinion. To be clear, his "abuse of office" is for ordering illegal wire taps - which is very common in Italy (see Silvio Berlusconi or this article which covers the topic nicely: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,440880,00.html). The issue is that the current article is not presenting a neutral point of view, which when dealing with biographies of living persons is concerning. It is very difficult to write a NPOV article because the only sources available on him are slanted against him. (Connolly15 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
No one would pay attention if he was wiretapping mafioso thugs or serial killers. He was doing it to journalists and as I said above he has been convicted and sentenced to over a year in prison which is not at all common. I have tried in my own mind to be fair to Mignini and you can read that above in 'Prosecution and defence arguments section' but I'm afraid the more I find out the less inclined I am to believe that he is a just another Italian prosecutor as you are suggesting. Is it true or untrue that in "October 2008, a year after the murder, he told a court that the murder 'was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers ... should have occurred 24 hours earlier' -- on Halloween itself -- 'but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day.'"(NINA BURLEIGH) If you go into print like Burleigh has and say that someone said something in court that they did not in fact say, then they can sue you. If they do not sue I think we can draw the conclusion that they did say it. When you report someone's own words it's not 'slanting'. Overagainst (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, he won't serve a minute in prison as he was given a suspended sentence (assuming his second trial also convicts - note all other charges were dismissed in the first trial). I wasn't referencing wiretapping of organised crime - politicians and regular citizens are also wiretapped in Italy - you can go and listen to conversations that Berlusconi had on his mobile phone if you want where he uses some colourful language to describe the German Chancellor. Then you bring up a different topic about him: Again, I'm not trying to defend him - I wan't to ensure that the article is NPOV and balanced, which previous versions of it definitely were not. You can report what someone said, sure, but it is how you present it that matters. (Connolly15 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
A comparison could be drawn to Marcia Clark, I could fill her page with criticism over the failure of the O. J. Simpson murder trial, etc etc etc ... but that would not be presenting a neutral point of view of the facts. (Connolly15 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
Do something else while under a suspended sentence and what happens? If he'd been targeting people that it was reasonable to suspect were criminals, or even high ranking officials with marginally credible allegations against them (Andreotti said years ago that being under investigation is just part of being a public figure in Italy) then his investigations could turn up evidence to show his actions were justified or at least that he acted in good faith. No one would think any the less of him, and he would not have got even a suspended sentence for ordering wiretaps. People would respect him the more for it. But he was not doing that at all, he was targeting journalists who were getting in the way of an investigation into what he thought was a conspiracy but involved a collection of totally innocent people. And now he has been accused of prosecuting innocent people he'd cast in a yet another far fetched conspiracy theory. It is not disputed that his original targets were completely innocent of a conspiracy to commit the Monster of Florence killings. He 'fell into a delusion' and pursued a preposterous line of inquiry. Now it seems he's done it again. He's not the little guy in this. Il potere logora chi non ce l'ha.Overagainst (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

)

Police focus on Knox section

It should be mentioned that Amanda Knox sobbed uncontrollably on the day of the discovery of the body in front of the policeman, Giobbi.(source In February 2008, 48 Hours met with Giobbi) It should also be mentioned that she and Raffaele Sollecito were a week into an intense infatuation, during that week they had been seen constantly hugging and kissing when together. I don't like that photo as, although you explain it was a unrepresentative screen grab, it gives a misleading impression: it gives the impression that they brought it on themselves. If any photo is going to be used in this section it shoud be this Knox surrounded by cops. Actually we don't know why the police started to focus on Knox.

"On several occasions, she behaved in a way that either the police or Kercher's British friends found emotionally inappropriate". The article should give an objective account; that they gave testimony in court in which they said that they had found Knox's behaviour inappropriate. As it is you're using Wikipedia's voice there to say something which is not known. It is possible that their testimony was colored in hindsight, we don't know. And it should be mentioned that there is a long list of women whose demeanor was thought 'suspicious'. Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Kate her mother, became a suspect. Joanne Lees was thought to be reacting in a 'wrong' way after her boy friend was murdered in the outback. The Amanda Knox witch trial, live on your television "The inherent sexism involved here is nothing new. When it comes to criminal cases, members of the fairer sex are expected to behave in a certain way – to weep and wail as they do in the movies. If they don’t, it’s seen as a clear admission of guilt. That Knox could kiss her boyfriend in public so soon after the murder of her flatmate was deemed cold, just like Kate McCann’s composure after the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine. Joanne Lees had the finger of blame pointed at her when her boyfriend, Peter Falconio, vanished in the Outback, only for her to seem remote and unmoved at the ensuing press conference. But casting aspersions like this is not just dunderheaded: it is dangerous. Can anybody really say how they might react in a similar situation" Yes, Amanda Knox is guilty. Guilty of being sexually active and female. "Remember her? The British woman whose boyfriend was murdered in the Australian outback a decade ago? Who failed to show sufficient emotion in court? Who was shown to have been having an affair? And who was regarded as guilty until proven innocent"

The shifting assertions of the police as to why they suspected Knox are no more 'facts' than the assertions by Knox supporters. Injustice in Perugia "It was reported that Investigators found hair at the crime seen believed to belong to an African male. This was mentioned in early reporting but was never mentioned at trial." What happened to Amanda Knox may have had little to do with her supposed demeanor or behaviour at the scene in the aftermath of the discovery of the body of Meredith Kercher. (The police wanted credit for being perceptive and claimed to have suspected her). Some who have a law enforcement background say there is reason to think she got into this through(early forensic indications ie hairs) that a black man was involved. The police, who always check texts, mobiles and emails when investigating serious crime, suspected her of the murder through this connection to a black man. When they brought her in for the final 14 hour interrogation Knox says they insisted they had proof that Lumumba was the murderer and that she had been present. And they broke her down and got her to say what they wanted, just like they would break almost anyone.Overagainst (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee. What I see from your post is 1) here are some tangents that we need to go into 2) I don't like the photo 3) Let's add a list of other women "And it should be mentioned that there is a long list of women whose demeanor was thought 'suspicious'."
Could you please clarify without a wall of text?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice link Berean "As a label, it is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing. TL;DR is a shorthand observation very much like the complaint that Mozart's music has too many notes."
Photographs are very powerful and using a photo that has proved terribly misleading in the past is not a good idea. If that photo of them kissing is used it should be put in the context of her crying that day and their intense relationship including a lot of kissing. And it is not a tangent to point out that we don't know why the police (whose investigations are directed by the prosecutor in Italy) focused on Knox, we just know what they say. Moreover we don't know what the reaction of people to Knox was in the days after the murder we just know what they testified to. Douglas Preston's interactions with Giuliano Mignini may have been far less dramatic than the account he gives
Here are 2 other articles about women's demeanor and those who think they can read it. Not Wrong To Stay Strong, "Take one columnist’s comments in a midmarket newspaper last week. Amanda Knox has been cleared of murder: there never was convincing evidence against her or plausible motive for her supposed crime and yet, in one of the most sinister and sexist articles I have read for years, this writer threw doubt on her vindication because her eyes didn’t flinch in court and she didn’t go to pieces in prison: “There is something disquieting about Amanda Knox, something that slightly chills the blood.” No, there is not." Here is yet another one Yes, Amanda Knox is guilty. Guilty of being sexually active and female. Amanda Knox: What's in a face? has already been referenced in the article.Overagainst (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Knox is one of many women accused of a crime for not behaving as others thought they should after a death, often followed by questionable scientific testimony delivered with unshakable certainty, and/or a statement obtained under duress and without lawyers.
I'm thinking of Sally Clark, Kate McCann, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony, Trupti Patel, Lindy Chamberlain, Judith Ward. Men too: the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven (which included two women), Birmingham Six, Bridgewater Three, Cardiff Three, Stefan Kiszko, Stephen Downing, Derek Bentley, Colin Stagg. And still the lessons aren't learned.
But I don't agree that explaining what the police and prosecutors said brought Knox to their attention harms her. These are the issues they have pointed to (the kissing, the "hoopla" when she put the shoe covers on, etc). SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense Slim. Nonetheless in February 2008, 48 Hours met with Giobbi and he said that the first incident which made him suspect Amanda Knox was when she burst into tears sobbing uncontrollably. The 'hoopla' incident came after she had broke down crying. I think that is worth mentioning. Overagainst (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I added it here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Trials of AK and RS ?

Where did the article go? Where's the explanation? Let me guess... our consensus-spurning resident admin. Brmull (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I too am outraged by this! The vote was 20-8 in favor of the Trial aricle and that means nothing! WHY should Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito be stuck with their trial being under the murder of Meredith Kercher when they are innocent and had nothing to do with her murder!! The Trial article should exist. There is MORE THAN ENOUGH INFO to fill the Trial Article completely. In fact MOST of THIS article is NOT ABOUT the murder of Meredith Kercher but IS much more about the trial. I am not okay with this decision. It is not the right decision. Why do certain admins get to just go against a huge concensus? We can not rename this article because the information about Rudy Guede IS about the Murder. The trial article was about the wrongful conviction of two innocent people. Why was the concesnsus not listened to?! I agree with Brmull on this one ( if little else). A concensus burning admin? This should not be allowed. Issymo (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The material about the trial was removed from this article by Brmull, for no reason that I can see, and without waiting for uninvolved closure of the RfC (and it's not a question of numbers). I'm in the process of restoring the material to this page, and have nearly finished. We can't allow a series of POV forks to spring up around this. See Death of Caylee Anthony for a similar situation (similar only in terms of Wikipedia's editorial practices). That case was significantly more complex than this one, and yet we only have that one article, so that all the material is viewed in context. This article is currently 8914 words, so there is no need to start splitting it up. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Brmull may have jumped the gun in getting the new article started but I can understand why. I can not see your logic in not creating a seperate trial. The AK-RS trial in the end had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. It was a large distraction from the real case. I don't see this as a POV fork. It is a completely seperate topic. It is about the wrongful conviction of AK-RS. There is loads more information that could be added to the article. Keeping it under MOMK compromises what can be written. It has to keep the information balanced with that of Rudy Guede for instance. It is CONFINING the information that could go much more in depth on just the trial. Matteini and the retainment hearing are not in this article, the decision to keep them in jail. It doesn't go in depth on all the evidence presented at trial, the prosecution leaks to the press, the CV report, the appeal. The wiki guilters have managed to keep out mention of Injustice In Perugia. They have been acquitted and the trial does not belong here. Keeping it with the information on Rudy Guede is not even comparable but puts the three of them on the same levelIssymo (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand and respect what you're saying, but you're engaged in a form of original research. All the reliable sources, without exception, discuss Knox and the trials in terms of the murder, and vice versa after the first few days. Knox has no notability beyond that, and the trials obviously have no meaning beyond that. To try to discuss her or the proceedings separately will lead to people trying to add negative information about her outside the context that this article can provide. It is far better for her, and for our adherence to our living persons policy, to make sure she is discussed in context. This article isn't finished. If there are important details missing, we can add them. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
"the trials have no meaning beyond that" That is not true. This is a case of a corrupt judicial system and prosecutor. The meaning of this is how did it come to pass that innocent people were convicted. That the press was allowed to conduct an international media witch hunt. There are deep and profound meaning to this conviction. To say simply they were convicted and it was overturned is only scratching the surface. Yes, the trial was for the murder, but the implications to society are beyond that. To line up Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede as people accused of the murder as if they are equals makes my skin crawl. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should not be lined up with him. They are innocent. The Trial article would also ensure that she is discussed in the context of the trial so I don't see your point in that regard. Issymo (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The trial article didn't offer anywhere near the context this article does; Brmull simply created it from a section of this article. It's highly unlikely that anyone will take the time to write it properly. This article will go into detail about what you call the media witch hunt; there are lots of sources out there that can be used.
In a perfect world, I would agree with what you're saying. But this is the imperfect Wikipedia we're talking about, and there appear to be people out there who are still attacking Knox. My concern is that they will try to turn any second or third article into negative pieces, which will be resisted by her supporters, and so we will simply have created two or three new battlegrounds. Can you personally guarantee that you will be around forever to make sure these articles stay neutral? No (nor can anyone), and that is the problem. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I am obviously not going to win my point of view. I suggest in this article we create two completely seperate sections Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito trial in one and Rudy Guede Trial in another. The evidence used against each should be listed seperately in the different sections. There shouldn't be an evidence section that combines all three in one section. Issymo (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support for Knox and Sollecito

1. Perugia Shock should be moved to the Media section. Frank Sfarzo became a supporter but is a journlist/blogger first of all. 2. Injustice In Perugia is missing from the support section. Suggested addition: In March 2010 Injustice In Perugia was created. The site was described as an independent grassroots effort dedicated to overturning the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollicito. [8] 3. Retired FBI agent Steve Moore spoke on in support of Knox and Sollecito in both national and international press. He proclaimed “The evidence doesn’t just say she didn’t do it; the evidence proved that she couldn’t have done it,” [9]. Issymo (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lumumba - Restitution / Compensation

Hi. I have added a brief paragraph to the Italian criminal procedure section which I think will help understand how Lumumba fits into the criminal procedure at the court (thanks to SlimVirgin for correcting my poor drafting). I have made a few amendments to the article to try and clear up some of the confusing wording that is going on about the award of money given to Lumumba. Issue was that words like compensation, fine and damages were all being used interchangeably (likely due to the sources). Also, the figures were incorrect - €40k for legal expenses, €10k in restitution (per Massei report). Some of the English media seem to have picked up on the €40k figure only and have talked about it as "compensation" (technically it is, but for his legal expenses not for his being the victim). I've also taken a source used at Amanda Knox which shows the live feed with some english interpreting of the ruling at the appeal. I took from that that the €22k awarded at the appeal has been added on to the original sum, I think for the further legal expenses incurred by Lumumba to be represented at the appeal (as did the author at Amanda Knox). Probably best to confirm this once the Court of Appeal publishes its decision. Anyway, I think this is all correct and I hope it is more clear now, but if you disagree please let me know. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Thanks, Connolly, that's very helpful. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Split apart sections of the article into Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

I have seen this proposed here early and now in the DRV there should be an article for the trail of Amanda Knox and Raffaele, it currently is notable enough for a stand alone article. Please place Support or Oppose and your reasoning behind your choice about this issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe wait for the outcome of the DRV first before starting random articles?TMCk (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Support but agree with TMCK also. The difficulty is a bit of vagueness in the DRV discussion. Not clear how many editors want exactly what. I don't think there should be an AK article, but I also don't think there should be multiple new articles just to keep everybody satisfied. The more articles there are, the more difficulty is created for readers. So I would support this split if it gets consensus and resolves the issue. Titlte should probably be "Trials of...", though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I dont know how you could put the whole trial under Amanda Knox though, her boyfriend was tried as well so even if there is an article on Amanda Knox a short summary of the trail can be placed there with a link to the main article. There is no rush for this split though I am throwing the idea here as I have seen it pop up alot and support it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
For sure the whole trial shouldn't be in an "Amanda Knox" article but here on this one, unless or till it's getting too big and a section fork would be warranted. Right now we're not at this point yet and I don't see one in the future unless of course the media keeps on bringing more due material to incorporate.
My point: We're fine at the moment as we still have plenty of space for more content in this article where all due weight about the trial should be. Guess we'll see in the next weeks while watching the media reporting if we need to fork off some content for space and also if a "Amanda Knox" bio is warranted. There is no rush though as there never is one on wiki.TMCk (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Add: This article already is mostly of Knox's and Sollecito's trial (Guede is barely mentioned in comparrison).TMCk (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I generally agree with TMCk. Breaking up the MoMK article and the Knox/Sollecito trial would be messy and basically gut this article. Breaking out a Knox article would have the dual effect of providing an article which our readers frankly expect to exist, plus give us the opportunity to move over (and possibly expand) the coverage of some ancillary trials and info on media coverage of Knox, allowing this article to stay more on its actual topic. Win-win!LedRush (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
It was just a matter of time.TMCk (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support new article. Most readers of MoMK want to know the details of the crime, not paragraphs and paragraphs of useless back and forth about two people who were ultimately found to have nothing to do with it. Brmull (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Support - It seems obvious that the specific Amanda Knox matter, situation, case, and trial is stand-alone and notable, and copiously sourced. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds I don't know. Yes, the media focused on Knox in this murder case but especially since she was officially cleared of the charges we ought to be very careful not to attach her to the murder by writing a POV fork article about how "they wronged her" and neither one that places doubt on her innocents. Same for Sollecito BTW. "Most readers want to know the details of the crime"? We don't include every undue/fringe etc. content out there to WP. That's the presse's job if one might say so. At the moment there is not much to add and not much to remove from this article and certainly not much to be moved to any other potential article. It'll show in the near future if that changed. So till then: Just show patience.TMCk (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
What's undue/fringe about taking the sections about the Knox/Sollecito trials and putting them in a new article? True, that article is probably going to be a permanent POV wasteland just like it is here at MoMK. But I'd like to see a quality, NPOV article at MoMK and that will never happen as long as the Knox POV war rages here. Brmull (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support This article is greatly needed. Now that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been acquitted the trial needs its own article. They are no longer part of the Murder of Meredith Kercher. The MOMK article will also need a huge overhaul.Issymo (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Acquitted subject to appeal, they remain part of the murder of Meredith Kercher until such time as they are deemed not guilty by law, which is not until after the final appeal. I agree that we should proceed as you say, but only after the decision of the final appeal. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC))
  • Oppose, all these individuals came to public attention for one reason - the murder of MK and its direct aftermath/consequences. While some were acquitted and some convicted, and the trial is a large part of that topic, I think it better explains events in one article. If there is too much we need to say on the trial (or any other aspect really) for a single article then we might use summary style but I'm not seeing that right now. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hardly, the arrest, retainment, trial, conviction, appeal and release took 4 YEARS of constant media attention. They have been acquitted and have been proven to have nothing to do with the murder. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's OWN story is one of wrongful imprisonment. Just because it started with the Murder of Meredith Kercher does not make it ABOUT the murder. It is actually its own story. There is an abundance of information for a seperate artical, actually, there is much more information about the wrongful trial and conviction then of the Murder itself. More importanly, it has nothing to do with the Murder itself.Issymo (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
We aren't here to publicize "stories" or to support causes. There is a difference between how Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) covers a topic, and how news and media cover it. That it took 4 years is completely irrelevant - a matter that took 4 years can still easily be covered as one topic. An article is quite capable of covering a murder and its aftermath, and saying that some were acquitted and others were not. Please consider how other articles work and approach this one as an encyclopedia article. ""Person X was wrongly imprisoned and got acquitted" is not by itself a good reason to split an article. The "trial" section is a well balanced length. The article is a reasonable length for something of this profile. There isn't presently more that needs to go into it. And the trial has everything to do with the murder of course. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
"And the trial has everything to do with the murder of course". No, it had nothing to do with the murder and everything to do with a wrongful conviction.Issymo (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This is basic cause and effect. The "wrongful conviction" was a result of the trial. The trial was about the murder. The evidence at the trial and appeal was all evidence related to whether or not the defendants were the murderers. Most murder articles cover the events, the evidence, and the trial. They cover the trials resulting from the murder whether or not the defendants were in fact found innocent, because the trial is part of the event's encyclopedia coverage. If there is an excessive amount then summary style may be used for a sub-article, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were the accused in the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and the trial was a result of being the accused. Had there been no murder, there would have been no trial. All the facts discussed in the trial pertained to the case of the murder of MK. The fact that the accused were wrongly charged and have now been aquitted, does not make the case notable. There are hundreds of acquittals around the world - an encyclopedia needn't have articles for each of the trials. The fact that there was a trial by media is secondary. There have been many other cases with excessive media attention. What could be done, perhaps, is having a redirect to the relevant section in the article Murder of Meredith Kercher.--Tinpisa (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Late comment:The MoMK article is remarkably similar to the Caylee Anthony case (the accused were acquitted by the jury in both cases, both cases attracted a lot of media attention, and public sympathy). Just as splitting the Caylee Anthony article was not justified, so is it for the MoMK article. Tinpisa (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Just because this event caused another, doesn't mean they need to share the same article. It's got standalone sources now that separate it from the murder, even if the two events are heavily related. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Still oppose - most complex events have sources that discuss different aspects or one aspect but not others. The trial is completely connected to the murder. It wouldn't matter who was acquitted or how high profile the event, we're an encyclopedia - we don't artificially split apart events and their direct consequences, or put a crime in one article and the trial of its suspects in another article. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
What does being an encyclopedia have to do with artificially splitting apart events and their direct consequences? If sources treat them separately, we give them separate articles. And we do have sub-articles as well for a reason (e.g. Adolf Hitler and Sexuality of Adolf Hitler). – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "sources treat them separately"? Every report I've seen about Knox has always been within the context of the murder case and vice-versa. The fact that the two events are so inextricably linked means it would make no sense for a source to mention one without also mentioning the other. There is nothing "separate" about Kercher, Guede, Knox, and Sollecito, they're all part of the same event and none of them rise to the level of notability of the trial and aftermath (which is why I think everything belongs under one banner, "The Trials of Knox"). In this case, a source choosing to focus on one aspect of this event does not make that aspect "separate" to the extent that a separate article is called for. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment. I agree that splitting would gut this article of content. I would suggest that once the final appeal is concluded and guilt or innocence is conclusively determined some of the content on this page dedicated to the trial and the aftermath could be transferred to a new trial article if they are ultimately acquitted. This article could then be reshaped to reflect a partially unsolved murder (if one accepts that there were multiple assailants in the murder). I don't think that this should happen before the final appeal is decided - if the acquittal is overturned on appeal they will ultimately in the eyes of the law be guilty of the crime and IMHO it would be appropriate to maintain the information in this article. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC))
Comment: The article as it stands is unruly with info about the trials interspersed with discussion of forensics, etc. There is easily enough information about the investigation to fill its own article, just as there is enough about the trials to fill its own article. And while we don't have a crystal ball, unconditional acquittals in Italy are almost never overturned on final appeal. We are on fairly safe ground assuming this is the end of this case. Brmull (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I suppose we usually don't have separate articles for crimes and the resulting trials, but I think that this is a bit of an unusual case. There was a murder and a conviction in addition to a notable media circus that led to an (apparently) wrongful conviction of others. I think that there's a strong case that there are two notable subjects here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I think Amanda Knox should have her own article and that the users opposing that refuses to see the benifits of having a separate article for her. But if this is the closest we can get to that at the moment I support it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trial of Knox/sollecito article but I Support a Separate Amanda Knox Article - Breaking up the MoMK article and the Knox/Sollecito trial would be messy and basically gut this article. Breaking out a Knox article would have the dual effect of providing an article which our readers frankly expect to exist, plus give us the opportunity to move over (and possibly expand) the coverage of some ancillary trials and info on media coverage of Knox, allowing this article to stay more on its actual topic. Win-win!LedRush (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
A lot depends on what happens going forward with her. If it stays WP:BLP1E (for example, her life post-trial is some writings, book, interview, media stuff and basically all the direct aftermath of the case) then that can be summed up in a few sentences and added to a section called "aftermath". If it gets beyond WP:BLP1E and isn't just crystal ball speculation, I'd endorse a separate Amanda Knox article at that point because that would be outside the scope of the legal case. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
She is giving press conferences and interviews, so BLP1E doesn't apply. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that it would apply anyway (4 years is an awfully long event...she is originally notable for the murder, but her other actions (like allegations of sexual harrassment in prison, press conferences, interviews, etc.) are now independently notably, and it takes intellectual gymnastics to count this an one event. There is a lot of notable, biographical information about her that simply doesn't belong in a MoMK article.LedRush (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The idea of BLP1E is people who come to notice for one cause. The mediaattention is still, if you are dispassionate, all basically "noted for one event". There was a murder. People got arrested charged, and jailed, there was debate and outcry over the crime and trial, they appealed, were acquitted, and are now being asked to present their views and feelings to the media. It's all "one thing" - one event and its natural followthrough - from an encyclopedia viewpoint. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I think your inclusion criteria is at odds with most of the BLPs in Category:Overturned convictions by country, and probably a lot of other categories. "people who come to notice for one cause" is a very loose rule, and is not one that we follow. It would require seriously responsible editorial judgment. Our editors are not qualified for that. This is why we follow an easier rule - "we cover what others have already covered." There is plenty of independent reputable secondary source coverage of Knox. I disagree that BLP1E should cover extended followthroughs. Instead, all of: (a) the murder, (b) the accusation, (c) the sensational prosecutor's case, (d) the trial and conviction and long incarceration, (f) the popular and vocal ensuing worldwide noise asserting a miscarriage of justice, (g) the appeal and overturn, are all separate events, and BLP1E does not apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
BLP1E does exists as a guideline with to ensure to that low profile individuals aren't given too much attention because of their role in one event. (From the policy: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.") Knox is not a low profile individual and therefore the guideline (which is loose anyway) doesn't apply to her. She seeks out the media attention to help her case and therefore the privacy concern is no longer an actual concern. That it takes intellectual gymnastics to view this as a single event is merely the icing on top. BLP1E simply doesn't apply here.LedRush (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support, and it should be "Trials of AK and RS". The trial - with its offshoots - is notable in a sense that stands quite apart from the crime - which is also notable though. It also has much wider (but more controversy-ridden) sources. Splitting out the trial/s (and perhaps moving the Amanda Knox redir there, but I have no trouble with setting up a separate Knox article either, she is achieving notability by now) would likely help improve the current article, heave off some of the edit warring and sensationalizing from here and make MoMK more focused on the circumstances of the crime and the initial, pre-trial inquiry. It would also save it from jolting every time one of the participants in the trial story gives an interview, writes a book (as Knox will probably do) or a new trial makes news (Knox's parents are due for trial in a few months for defamation, Guede might appeal, and there will likely be one more round of the main trial process, etc)Strausszek (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support  The prevailing view as of 3 October is that AK and RS were not present during the murder of Kercher, thus their story is not directly a part of the current Topic and the material here is currently too closely associated with Guede's story.  Also, the concerns of those that are seeing a need for a BLP for AK will be reduced by having an article title with the two words "AK".  It is certainly possible that AK will use this 15 minutes of fame to become individually notable, at which point we will also need to give her attention with a BLP, but right now she remains a "low-profile individual" and we don't want to encourage non-encyclopedic information such as her early life and her relatives.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me clarify that this split does not depend on how "Amanda Knox" is redirected, the split is a function of the decision of 3 October, and will work well with or without a BLP for AK.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: A "Trials" article just needs to be created and it will inevitably be challenged for deletion, which on the basis of the above discussion will not get consensus. Then those editing MoMK can decide how much detail about the trials they want to leave here. Brmull (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I would rather this had waited till after the DRV, but it's a good idea nonetheless. The trial is a separate (although closely related) event to the initial murder and meets WP:EVENT by a long way. There's plenty of content to write a decent article, and it would provide a more logical redirect target for Knox and Sollecito. Reducing the amount of trial-related content in this article would be beneficial too, and in this way could be done without losing any information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzarian16 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the redirect of Raffaele Sollecito, there is no better target for that redirect than to create this new split.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: apparently we now have a boldly-created article Timeline of the Amanda Knox case, which may or may not affect any split of this page. I still think that a trial article is the way to go, and would suggest that maybe that article should be merged there. Others will no doubt disagree... Alzarian16 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no immediate need to separate the trials from MoMK no matter what the result of the DRV. They are so inextricably linked that to do so would only result in a redundant article. The amount of information that now exists about the trials certainly doesn't call for a split on that basis. However, I do see the need to rename MoMK to "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raphaele Sollecito" and possibly reworking the structure. The trials and aftermath are directly related to MK, but outweigh MK's notability, which indicates to me that both MK and Knox/Sollecito (as individuals) were merely somewhat minor aspects of the main event - the trials. Since I don't believe Knox -clearly a low-profile individual as of now - in any way deserves a standalone article yet, and the MoMK details would more appropriately belong in an article mainly about the trials etc., the title change seems the best action to take right now. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
They would not be redundant. There is no reason to include any information about the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the MOMK artilce. A simple line that says they were originally convicted it was overturned with a link would be enough.Issymo (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Support This article would not exist without Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It is time for Wikipedia to finally get this right. If Amanda and Raffaele had not been wrongfully convicted, none of us would have ever heard of Meredith Kercher. Meredith's name has remained in the media for the past 4 years because of the injustice committed against Amanda and Raffaele. Unfortunately people are murdered everyday. All of those victims do not get their own Wikipedia article. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. The story has always been about Amanda and Raffaele. Wrongful convictions cause insufferable damage to all involved. It shows no disrespect to Meredith Kercher to properly report on this case. Step back, look at the big picture and get it right this time. BruceFisher (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hats off to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for making Meredith Kercher famous. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't their choice. What a moronic comment by you. They had 1427 days stolen from them. Do you honestly think that you would have heard of Meredith Kercher if Guede was arrested the next day and convicted? Stop fighting about guilt or innocence. It's over. It's time to report the truth. BruceFisher (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There we go again: Simply and plain forum opinions w/o any connection to WP policies, guidelines and standards applied. Party time or what?TMCk (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are now public figures whether anyone likes it or not. There should be a wikipedia entry for their (joint) trial and seperate pages from them as individuals. Dougbremner (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose both new article(s) and rename as neither Knox nor Sollecito are (yet?) notable for anything apart from this case. Also the victim's name in the title of such an article functions as a kind of tribute. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is extremely notable. I should be its own article.Issymo (talk)

Unfortunately this page has attracted a few people who seem unfamiliar with how Wikipedia differs from most media. Maybe this will help. On this site, we don't give people their own articles just for being "public figures" or "celebrities" if they fit better into another topic and we don't write in order to present anyone's "story" as some suggest. We We consider events and their consequences as a whole rather than artificially splitting them, so people get a rounded neutral viewpoint. We write as an educational not a promotional site. If you read the O. J. Simpson murder case (another very high profile murder case with acquittal) you would expect to read a summary of the whole matter on one page, including its trial, aftermath and analysis, and if you check, you will find it so. If it helps, think of Knox, Raffaele and MK herself as simple data, unjudged points on a graph, or figures in a course case study or textbook (for this purpose). Ask what way best educates a student about that data. It may help. Another way to think of the difference is, which way of presenting the topic best educates and informs - not which way best meets the editor's personal views. It means connected items are often on the same page when that helps the topic be fully covered, clear, and minimize repetition. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

These are two different topics. The trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should not be connected to the MOMK. They should be seperarte articles because they are seperate topics. The murder lead to the trial but the trial overwhelmes the MOMK information.Issymo (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
If you studied the case, you would realize that the trial existed directly and only because of the murder. The people tried were tried directly and only because they were the accused of the murder. Like OJ Simpson, just because someone is acquitted or the trial overshadows the murder, is not ever a good reason to split. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"Ask what way best educates a student" Why ask that? Students are recommended to not use Wikipedia because it is not reliable. Can we stop the lectures now? We know how Wikipedia works. I am sorry that you feel it is "unfortunate" that we are here. BruceFisher (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not at all sure that all users editing here know how Wikipedia works. Some have edited nothing except this article and have little or no other experience of how articles should look. Others show complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, wanting the "story" told and the like. A little (or very little) knowledge of editing norms and a strong personal viewpoint on the case is not going to lead to high quality neutral editorial judgment. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does Meredith Kercher have an article? BruceFisher (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Kercher does not have her own article; It's a redirect to this one, the murder case. Welcome to the real world.TMCk (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's time for this article to step into the real world. Let me rephrase my question for you to make it a little more clear. Why is there an article detailing Meredith's murder? BruceFisher (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Two reasons: it meets our inclusion criteria (passes WP:NOT and is surely evidenced to meet our general notability guideline), and also as an event it surely meets the criterion of our guideline on event notability as well. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how clogged up Wikipedia would be if every murder in the world was given an article? We all know why Meredith Kercher's murder has an article. It is due to the controversy created by two people being wrongfully convicted. All of the hype was caused by the fantasy created around Amanda and Raffaele. When you come to that realization then Wikipedia may begin to accurately present the information regarding this case. Until then, no Wikipedia guideline will help. BruceFisher (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I might just know, by now. You're saying that routine news isn't and shouldn't be covered, and I agree. But nobody is likely to assert that this case had just "ordinary" or "routine" coverage, and your "reason" why there is an article is blue sky. Bruce, you really do need to read our guidelines more carefully before commenting, because even after months of involvement, you just now showed two big misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works:
  1. Whether the charges were dropped or whether it was a "fantasy" created around two individuals (as you describe it) really wouldn't matter. We cover or not based on "enduring notability" of the topic, because we're a reference work on events, not a media source for tabloids. Even a completely fictional matter like a hoax can be covered if it gained enough attention. Even if an event is "fictional" the attention it gets is not. Of course the murder is far from fictional, and the fact these individuals were the accused for it is also non-fictional.
  2. "Accurate presentation" of information is based on reliable sources. These can change, but we write what they show now, not what you think they "ought" to show or what you believe they will (or should) show in future.
FT2 (Talk | email) 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I know, I know, Wikipedia guidelines!! I have heard it all before. Instead of using common sense you always shout "Wikipedia guidelines." Stop for a minute and look at this case as a real live person, not a Wikipedia robot. The murder of Meredith Kercher would have never been given an article on Wikipedia if the controversy had not been caused. This is a fact that you are ignoring. This fact fits in well with your "guidelines." Wikipedia is not properly structured to handle cases like this one and does a great disservice to the public by attempting to do so. The number one search for Amanda Knox has provided misinformation about this case for 4 years now because of "Wikipedia guidelines." What makes Wikipedia dangerous is the fact that it is often correct, leading readers to believe that all content is correct. Now is the time to do the right thing. Amanda Knox has been found innocent, Not "not guilty," INNOCENT. Stop lecturing on Wikipedia guidelines and look at this case as a real live person. Detailing this case properly fits right into your guidelines. Unfortunately, Amanda Knox is the story. Meredith Kercher was made famous because Amanda Knox was dragged into the nightmare. This is a fact! Wikipedia is nothing more than a media guide when it comes to cases like this. All sources are media related. The media offers you all of the necessary information now to get this right. Now, get it right. BruceFisher (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think with that viewpoint you need to be writing for more subjective media (blogs, newspapers, magazines). The fact is that there has been significant attention (indifferent as to its cause), and AK was central to that attention (whether or not guilty or innocent). Wikipedia is a reference work. Our agreed aim is to summarizes published information neutrally and dispassionately, and to a large extent treating it all as data. In borderline "grey" issues we do allow for human considerations - we remove borderline biographies on request, we remove unsubstantiated claims and unbalanced biographical material, we can decide that some information really isn't central to the topic. But this case isn't any of those. Here, neutrality trumps virtually everything. If you cannot accommodate that or find it hard to adapt, then you may find it easier to pick a different topic. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Another Wiki veteran that has lost the ability to think on his/her own. if you honestly believe that "neutrality trumps virtually everything" when it comes to this article then you are simply unable to see reality. Wikipedia has not allowed an article for Amanda Knox because you claim that she is only significant because of Meredith Kercher's murder. You have it backwards! Meredith Kercher's murder is only significant due to the controversy caused by Amanda Knox's wrongful conviction. So far you have been completely unable to communicate as a human being. You have shown that your capabilities are limited to repeatedly reciting Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a healthy way to create good content. BruceFisher (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
With just a little effort, I think you should be able to refactor your criticism of FT2’s values-weightings and logic without being personal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I have come to realize that no matter how I respond the results are the same so I have decided to just be honest. Even if you disagree with my approach, any clear minded person can see that I am right. BruceFisher (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
But you aren't right. Perhaps you have been too close to the subject to see this objectively. You state "You have it backwards! Meredith Kercher's murder is only significant due to the controversy caused by Amanda Knox's wrongful conviction.". When one looks back at the creation of this article on Nov. 12, 2007, there is absolutely nothing which professes anything about the innocence of Knox & Sollecito...nothing to suggest that they were incorrectly charged. In fact, the early version contains her confession. Same goes for the earliest version of the Amanda Knox article just six days after the murder (here it is). You may have missed the fact that it was the sensational details released by the Italian authorities which made this case notable (Satanic sex orgy gone wrong). Wikipedia does consider sensational murder details to be notable...like Black Dahlia. I don't believe there was a notable pro-innocence movement for Knox until some time later (When?). So, no, the murder was given its own notability due to the lurid details; not the people accused of the crime. That is why we have policies and guidelines lest more of these logic-skewed "clear-minded persons" decide to cast them aside.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You miss the point completely. You said: "So, no, the murder was given its own notability due to the lurid details; not the people accused of the crime" The "lurid" details came from descriptions of those accused of the crime. If Guede had been arrested early on as he should have been, there would have been no "lurid" details. It would have been just one of the many other unfortunate murders that occurred in the world. A woman was murdered during a burglary. It was not a complicated crime. The "lurid" details were all a fantasy resulting in the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I am right. Open your eyes and look at reality. Stop looking back for a "guideline" to throw back at me and look at the facts. BruceFisher (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Support Between web, newsprint and general media the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were perhaps the most closely observed legal proceedings in history and there are many legitimate issues that emerged from them that were/are of paramount concern to the international community; the use of LCN DNA as an investigative tool to identify suspects being one example. Other issues, including the remarkable statement at the beginning of the appeal's proceedings and (one would assume) 'after' reading the report of the original trial judge, the appellate Justice announced that the only thing that was certain was that there had been a crime. In a process often cited as one that added unquestionable authority and credibility to the prosecutions case, evidence was obtained, admitted and accepted without rigorous examination as it progressed up the chain of procedural levels and finally to trials that were held specifically to prosecute Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. An article is needed to address the nature, mindset and history of the prosecutorial process as it wound it's way thorough these various levels of the courts. Without an examination of this process and the trials themselves it would be impossible to understand why justice for Meredith Kercher has remained elusive as well as how/why Amanda and Raffaele went from witness, to suspect, to criminal defendants who were imprisoned for 4 years before being exonerated in the strongest terms available to the court.Fancourt (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Amanda Knox no has a separate article after a long discussion. Perhaps this suggestion is no longer useful?..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Very useful. I think there will probably need to be two articles, one about the Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and another bio article about Amanda Knox. I think the priority should be on the Trial article and if she writes a book or something the bio article could always be created later.Issymo (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

'Support'I fully support splitting this article in to two sections, one for the Murder of Meredith Kercher and one for the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Considering the controversy on this page alone the trial and appeal and ongoing news coverage of this process deserve to have their own coverage. While I fully support Merdith’s murder having its own page I think that it serves better to her memory to separate the pages rather that to muddy up her memory with travesty of justice that was the first trial. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been exonerating in the first court of appeals and deserve to have the details of the opinion of this court told separately from the propaganda that that has dominated the MoMK article over the past four years. Turningpointe (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See comments above. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and refrence work, not a newpaper, blog or promotion platform. We don't have articles to "serve peoples memory" and we don't make editorial decisions based on what will "muddy up her memory" or to fix up real-world issues such as perceived "travesties of justice". Sorry, but if those are what is asked for, it's the wrong kind of website to request it. Here we deal in neutral, impersonal, cited, reliably sourced, encyclopedic approaches. Factually, the murder and trials are part of the same stream of events, as with many other high profile trials and aquittals. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


'Support' This is long overdue. As Bruce has said, the murder was a tragic but sadly all too common crime and is only in Wikipedia at all because of the inexplicable behaviour of the Perugian authorities who framed two innocent people when they had found the real murderer. The international furore following their villification of Knox and the consequential establishment of an innocence campaign is what makes the case notable. That is a fact. Far more internet searches are made for 'Amanda Knox' than for 'Meredith Kercher' because it is interest in the trial and coverage around it that drives traffic, not interest in the murder per se. NigelPScott (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Good, thanks.Issymo (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment How do we go about starting the new Trial artilce? One thing we could do is move over all the trial of AK and RS information from MOMK and just start from there. The new article will need new sections. Some suggestions: arrest, retainment, trial-conviction, appeal-acquittal, media impact. Issymo (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    • (Oppose any such creation). Such an article would be likely to be immediately replaced with a redirect back to here, as WP tries very hard to avoid internal content forks. The scope of an article on a murder case would normally include a review of investigations into the murder, and of trials that proceeded from those investigations -- because it makes a lot of sense to cover such tightly-related subjects all in the one place. (For example, consider the Murder of Rachel Nickell, which includes the trial and acquittal of Colin Stagg; or any other article you choose on a noteworthy murder). If a new article is not going to be dismissed immediately as just a content fork, you are going to need to make very clear what it is that the new article is going to contain that would differ from the treatment that would be expected at this article. Jheald (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Ditto Casey Anthony. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support the creation of a "Trial(s)..." article in principle (I prefer this concept to that of a separate biography on Knox). However, now that Amanda Knox is being expanded from a redirect, how will it be possible both to have a trio of articles by the names Murder of Meredith Kercher, Trial(s) of (Amanda) Knox and (Raffaele) Sollecito and Amanda Knox and to deal with the problem of content-forking? The degree of overlap between these three subjects is such that it will be difficult to avoid duplicating information with the existence of more than one spinout article (I have yet to bring the recently created Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case into the equation). I too would like to register my dissatisfaction with some of the "arguments" that have been made in support of this proposal - Wikipedia does not select article titles on the basis of how best to tell someone's "story", nor does this debate have anything whatsoever to with whether someone's memory is "served" or "muddied". This is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. As for the notion that the murder itself is of little or no notability in comparison to that of the surrounding trials controversy, why is it that an article specifically titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher" has existed on Wikipedia ever since the murder occurred in late 2007 (i.e. before the controversy appeared)? Even without the notoriety that the affair has now, the article was kept at AfD in early 2008 (since then it has not been renamed). I think that FT2 hits the nail on the head with his "cause and effect" argument, and consider it far superior to pseudo-arguments that seem to have a lot to do with emotions and little to do with how Wikipedia actually works. SuperMarioMan 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The murder itself would have had no notability if two innocent people had not been wrongfully accused. If Guede was arrested early on as he should have been, the case would have received very little press. A woman was murdered during a burglary. This was not a complicated crime. If the authorities did not create the "sex game gone wrong" theory and arrest two innocent people to fit their fantasy, this would have fallen into the same category as all many other senseless murders that occur in the world. Does every murder on earth have its own Wikipedia article? BruceFisher (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Not really a question of "would have had no notability" - the article as titled "Murder of..." survived AfD (so, evidently, the subject was considered to pass the notability requirements) just two months after the murder occurred. To claim that the murder "would have had no notability" is to view the whole matter from the wrong end. Again, it's all about cause and effect. As to your closing question: obviously not, but when murder stories attract sufficient third-party coverage (which this one achieved in two months, even without the controversy that we know now), Wikipedia creates articles for them. SuperMarioMan 16:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again you fail to look at reality because some Wikipedia guideline can be slapped in so you can avoid looking at facts. Why did the article survive AfD? What made it notable? The facts are clear, the case was notable due to the salacious lies told by the authorities while wrongly accusing Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The murder is not notable, The story surrounding the murder is. When you say "sufficient third-party coverage" you are just reinforcing what I have said all along, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia when it comes to cases like this one, it is just a media guide. Just so you know, I like you so much that I included you in my new book. I have been nothing short of amazed that the number one viewed source online for one of the biggest cases in recent history(the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito), has been controlled by people with names like "SuperMarioMan." Astonishing really. Thankfully the facts are so clear at this point, the article has now become somewhat readable, too bad it is 4 years too late. BruceFisher (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that I can make this any clearer - the article was kept at AfD before the surrounding controversy emerged. (Did we know about all this controversy as far back as January 2008? I honestly don't remember that being the case.) This is the point that I am making. I am of the opinion that both the murder and the trials have become highly notable in very different ways, but due to the result of that original AfD, I disagree with the suggestion that the murder was somehow a non-event in relation to the trials. I'll add that I am nothing short of amazed by this childish obsession with my username. Still, I'm thrilled to hear that it'll be in a book! SuperMarioMan 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is this conversation going on? We have a separate article for the trials, and another for Knox. These are done deals (the former is bad, in my opinion, the latter good). Let's move on. For the record, the murder is only notable beyond one news cycle because of Knox's role in it (which was speculated upon immediately) and SuperMarioMan's name is friggin' awesome.LedRush (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, everything is fine now so why bother with the past? I am amazed that some of the editors here are so hung up on Wikipedia policy that they have lost the ability to use common sense. Wikipedia misrepresented this case to the public for nearly 4 years, and now Wikipedia owes Amanda and Raffaele an apology. The problem is that too many Wikipedia superheros will never be able to realize what they have done. Why? Oh yeah, because the BS that was spewed out survived "AfD"!! All is well in the world because there is a Wikipedia guideline to slap on the mistake. Instead of rejoicing that the case is finally being reported correctly, why not use this as a learning experience? It is crystal clear that Wikipedia is the wrong format for cases like this. Learn from the mistake and make proper changes to prevent this from happening again. BruceFisher (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Strong Support' :The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It’s time. The murder of MK and the prosecution and eventual acquittal of AK are two separate issues and deserve to be treated as such. Except for blatant obstructionism I can’t even imagine why this is considered debatable. Meredith deserves an accurate page dedicated to her untimely death. Amanda and Raffaele deserve a page dedicated to the facts of the flawed investigation and baseless witch trial that followed. The subject is not newsworthy because of Meredith Kercher; it’s newsworthy because it was a perversion of the law orchestrated by an out of control prosecutor. The Kercher family has said it themselves, Meredith has been forgotten. That’s to some degree true because in this story of an unjust crusade to punish an innocent young American woman, AK is the victim. Two crimes and two victims.. Two separate focuses.. require two pages . Tjholme (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Strong Support' I agree with Tjholme. I see no reason why a "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" page cannot be a stand-alone page, which would leave the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" page free from all of the squabbling, which is not about Ms. Kercher at all, but about the investigation and prosecution and wrongful convictions. I think it's time to split the two subjects out to their own pages at this juncture. Jazz2006 (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It's about wrongful acquittals. Just thought I'd say so. --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not found not guilty, they were declared INNOCENT in an Italian court. The court concluded that they had absolutely nothing to do with the murder. I like actual facts. Just thought I'd say so. BruceFisher (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is well known as the Amanda Knox case. This murder article should focus on what actually happened in the crime, the undisputed facts like the specific wounds the finding of the body, the time of death... and should act as a sub article for the Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article. The fact is, Amanda Knox is about a dozen times more notable than everyone else in this case combined. And all of them are notable. The current structure is like having an article on Timothy Geitner with a section on the President he served under. CD-Host (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Apples and Oranges. There are many references (if not an entire section) to President Obama in Timothy Geithner, but if Obama was so integral to Geithner's story that he deserved a section devoted to him, as much as Knox's trials, etc. are integral to MoMK, then he'd get one. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Support new article, or move this article to Trial of Amanda Knox or a similar title. People are murdered every day, it's the trial and the media attention it received, not the murder in itself, which makes the case notable. Mocctur (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than waste any more editor time on this discussion I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case to Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to give us a starting point (leaving the brief timeline as a section which can be separated out later if required). There is overwhelming support for the creation of a separate "trials" article and as User:Brmull noted, "readers of MoMK want to know the details of the crime, not paragraphs and paragraphs of useless back and forth about two people who were ultimately found to have nothing to do with it". -- samj inout 14:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Our articles on murders are expected to cover the consequential investigations and trials that arise from them. A separate spin-out article is appropriate only if the material is not being covered in sufficient detail here. If such an article is necessary (and I am to say I am at the least dubious), then that is a separate matter from the Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case, which covers all the events that have evolved from the murder, and for which the balance of opinion on its talk page is that it should not be moved or re-purposed. Jheald (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said, "Ok so the timeline of MoMK is a> she was murdered and b> Guede went to jail for it. Meanwhile the trial of Knox and Sollecito kicked off and virtually all of the timeline events relate to this. In other words, a timeline article for MoMK would certainly not be justified, and the trials timeline is sufficiently concise as to belong in a section of a trials article. We already have the MoMK & Knox articles and will soon have a trials article — do you really think we need four articles for a single event? Is it worth more editor time discussing it? Do you really think a dedicated timeline article would survive AfD?". -- samj inout 14:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's see whether we do have a trials article any time soon, and then whether it survives AfD as anything more than a content fork of this article; and then we'll know where we stand to review the timeline article. Meanwhile, as I wrote above, the balance of views on the timeline talk page is that it should not be redirected or repurposed. Jheald (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"Overwhelming support for the creation of a separate "trials" article"? There isn't even a clear consensus for that, let alone overwhelming support for it. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Until the actual case is resolved concerning Knox, having this !vote is premature. As Mignini has said there will be an appeal then Knox & Sollecito aren't necessarily out of the woods yet.1 If we truly knew that things are over concerning K & S and the case then that would make things easier to decide.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The current vote is 20 Support and 8 Oppose. It has been up for 10 days now so everyone should have had time to vote. This is clearly in favor of a new article. How do we get and Admin or someone to give approval to start working on the new article? There has been enough time for everyone to weigh in. The majority is clearly in favor of a new article. Lets move on this now. Issymo (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately for WP, admins weigh opinions in relation to policy, not votes or popular demand. If 20 !votes go against policy or community consensus, for example, and 8 do not, guess which ones usually prevail? Shirtwaist ☎ 03:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course, the article was actually created some time ago...LedRush (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and we'll have to see if it's AfDed for being split off without a clear consensus and for being an unnecessary content fork. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment What about this one [10]? Redirect to the new article? Merge with the new article? --Juanm (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose merge it with the trial article.Issymo (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support There is more than enough interest in this case to justify two articles. One that is a good overview that provides most of the information that somebody with a casual interest in the case would want and one that provides details about the trials and eventually the prosecution's appeal if there is one. As I see it an article focused on the trial would provide more details than would be appropriated for the MoMK article on these kind of things: Details about the unusual aspects of Italy's legal system and how they affected the trials of RS/AK. 2. Details about the civil cases and the false accusation charges that were tried simultaneously with the murder case. 3.More detailed discussion of the evidence presented in both cases. 4.Details about what of the Knox and Sollecito statements were ruled inadmissible for some charges and admissible for others and how a statement that was ruled to be illegally obtained could still be the basis of a charge against Knox. 5. Discussion of whether any EU regulations affected the court proceeding against RS/AK. 6. More details about the major players involved including information about Mignini's conviction and the requirement for a different prosecutor in the second trial.--Davefoc (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I did not add anything, I put 'when a jury decided there had been a miscarriage of justice' - which was what you deleted, back in. What you deleted was quite correct. As the jury reversed the decision of a trial you must accept that they decided a miscarriage of justice had taken place. Being found innocent is quite different. That would cover an acquittal at trial but this was an appeal. A lede is supposed to summarise the article and make people want to find out more. And you didn't just replace miscarriage of justice with 'innocent' you added "of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher" To what end? The exact same phase "convicted of sexual assault and murder" was in the previous sentence. As you left it the lede read "Sollecito were convicted of sexual assault and murder in December 2009, and sentenced to 26 and 25 years respectively. Their convictions were overturned on appeal in October 2011, when a jury found them innocent of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher". Terrible. People reading the lede need to know that a miscarriage of justice took place. Overagainst (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Clean, I am waiting let's hear your argument for that editOveragainst (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst, it's not really clear who you're talking to here. If your comment is aimed at one user in particular, you may prefer to leave a message directly on their talk page. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Overagainst, people have explained to you ad nauseum why your language is not suitable for the lede. Remember, the lede is a summary of the major points of the article. I actually think that your language may be suitable for the media section, if properly addressed per comments above. But your language is misleading (the jury said no such thing), puts undue weight on that specific term and is not properly cited. It simply cannot be allowed in the lede. I suggest that you focus your efforts to cleaning up the citations and language to put it in the media section (or elsewhere in the article).— Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs)
It was not my language as I pointed out in the edit summary. I DO NOT mess about with ledes. LedRush made a change to what I assumed was Slim's edit. I consider the edit left the lede in very poor shape for reasons given above. I reverted it because I think it was a very poor change to the lede and incredibly badly worded to boot. LedRush said 'now we discuss' in the edit summary I came to Talk but nobody turned up, they just reverted it. Now it's been reverted again. I am still waiting in Talk to talk about his change to the article. Thank you for pointing out about the number of reverting edits as I did not know that.
We have been discussing this a ton above. If you've missed the conversation, please see [11] LedRush (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"DNA evidence the prosecution had used against them was unreliable" I think the independent DNA experts went a lot further than that, they re tested the knife and found nothing but starch on the blade. Their conclusion suggested that if the single piece of DNA evidence remaining (bra clasp) had shown traces of the defendants during testing, that was because it was recovered "in a context that was highly suggestive of ambient contamination". "Highly suggestive" means 'probably' to my mind , would anyone care to dispute this?
Patrizia Stefanoni had no proper documentation of the procedures she followed to obtain the results and that alone casts doubt on what those results actualy were. She did not double check her results (she admitted in court she should have double checked). The independent experts had to reconstruct her lab work. Furthermore the bra clasp (that's what we are talking about) was stored in such a way that there was no possibility of the independent DNA experts replicating the results, it was rusty. The DNA evidence was found to be worthless not just "unreliable". Would anyone care to dispute this? Overagainst (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Unreliable has a particular meaning in relation to a legal case - which I think expresses the situation well. "worthless" is a rather emotive choice of word, and the sort of thing we'd discourage against in neutral writing. Particularly because the context of the sentence relates the word specifically to how the experts testified about the evidence. However, if you have a source indicating the experts specifically consider the evidence "worthless" (or any other word they consider it to be) then that would work too. --Errant (chat!) 11:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Unreliable may have a 'particular meaning' in a legal case however should we not be trying to use language in its everyday meaning. There is no justification for trying to boil the meaning down to one word anyway, why not use two words . The independent DNA experts also said the evidence was "not reliable". In its everyday meaning 'unreliable ' could mean almost anything or almost nothing. My approach in cases where there is a difference of interpretation is to use direct quotes. I think I have a phase from the independent DNA expert report which could be quoted in the lede "highly suggestive of ambient contamination". Overagainst (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Request about removing/tagging material

Hi Brmull, I'd appreciate it if you would not remove or tag material (particularly not remove it), because the removals may end up getting lost in the article's edit history. Instead, if you believe something is wrong, and can't find a source for it yourself, would you mind posting a note here, and giving editors a few days to fix it? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Back off. I have just as much right to edit the page as anyone. How am I supposed to find a source refuting a statement that is wrong and shouldn't be there? If a statement says, "X did Y", and it's not in the source, am I supposed to find a source that says "X DIDN'T do Y"? As for tagging, it's appropriate to tag something that's dubious and not in the source. On the other hand reverting my edit with the edit note "it's in all the sources" is simply you blowing off the WP:V policy, and shouldn't be tolerated. Brmull (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You just removed that the apartment was on the ground floor, though that's already sourced in the article, so it took me only seconds to add a source after that particular sentence. You could have done that instead of me. So it would be helpful if you could first check for a source, and if you can't find one, then ask here on talk.
See WP:V: "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself."
Also, as I said earlier, I'm uncomfortable with some of the comments you've made off-wiki about Knox, and I wonder whether you have a COI in relation to this. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It also took me about a second to find a source that refers to the boys' flat as the ground floor and the girls' flat as the second floor. I could find many more than you could find sources calling it the ground floor. My point is it's confusing and unnecessary to refer to the girls' flat as the ground floor, and so I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmull (talk • contribs)
Pot meet kettle. You've removed lots of material in this article without giving anyone time to object. Brmull (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
And, as I'm saying now, I'm uncomfortable with your bull-in-a-china-shop approach and unwillingness ever to admit you are wrong despite your relative newness to this article. Brmull (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you have a conflict of interest editing here, because it's clear from your many off-wiki posts that you're an anti-Knox activist, and some of the posts have amounted to personal attacks on her, rather than simply discussing the case. You should not be editing a Wikipedia article about a living person when you've crossed the line into activism against that person, especially not when it's someone who isn't standing for office where a degree of opposition would be understandable. I therefore think you should consider not editing this article again or any of the others about Knox.
I was also concerned about your comment that we could not use Nina Burleigh as a source because she's what you called a "radical feminist" (she isn't, so far as I know, but so what if she were?).
Personally, as I said before, I welcome your attention to detail, and I'd like to hear your suggestions on the talk page, but you've been removing a lot of material, and so I'm asking you now not to do that again. (Also, please don't post in the middle of my posts.) SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
How about this--YOU post your proposed edits in the talk section and the rest of us will look at them. You are rewriting the article wholesale. MoMK traditionally has made big changes only by consensus. My outside views are none of your business. Don't talk about them again. But since you brought it up, while we've been arguing, both Bruce Fisher and Doug Bremner have come and made edits to the article. Do you know who they are? Many people take an interest in MoMK because they have a strong desire to get the story right. I don't know what your deal is personally, but you are biased if you think Nina Burleigh set out to write a piece of straight journalism on the murder. Her book isn't even about the murder. It's about the "trials of Amanda Knox" at the hands of misogynist Italians. I've never said she isn't a RS for factual assertions. But the bulk of her book is colorful prose that is completely unverifiable, and frankly irrelevant to laying out the facts of the murder. I'm of the opinion that those assertions shouldn't be given undue weight. Meanwhile, critical facts aren't even mentioned in the article. I should be adding them rather than listening to more of your veiled threats. Brmull (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that you are posting personal attacks against Amanda Knox off-wiki. WP isn't meant to be an extension of the various discussion groups that have grown up around this case. You seem to be deeply invested in claiming she is guilty of a crime she has been found not guilty of, and that is problematic in terms of our policy on living persons. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You mentioned User:Dougbremner. Here you'll see another editor warn him about conflict of interest, also because he is/was writing about the case off-wiki (from the opposite perspective). SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This really needs a source: "though the police reportedly continued to allow people to enter it". It suggests the police did something improper. Brmull (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I will add a source. I believe it's Dempsey; I just need to find the page number. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the best one yet

My housekeeping edits are being reverted by SlimVirgin simply for who I am:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=next&oldid=456831606

Listen, Slim, I don't trust anyone editing this article. I've had my clashes with them. But we work together. Take a deep breath and recognize that while many people on this board have strong opinions about Knox (even ones that may be illegal in some countries) it doesn't necessarily affect their editing. I do tend to edit more on the prosecution side because I believe that is currently underrepresented, but if you look back you'll see that I make edits on the defense side to. Case in point, the edit above that says the movie ended at 9:10pm. The defense claims the movie ended much later, around 11 pm. That would give them an alibi. That's why I clarified that 9:10pm was according to police computer analysts. Brmull (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you removed the sentence about the movie ending. [12]
Everyone with knowledge of the case has a POV, so that's not the issue. The issue is that you're an anti-Knox activist, posting frequently about her (including serious personal attacks) on the anti-Knox sites, even using an image of Meredith Kercher for your Twitter avatar. Now you've arrived at Wikipedia to try to influence the content of our articles in the same direction.
This can go one of two ways. The community or the ArbCom could be asked to topic ban you from any pages related to Knox, which would likely include the talk pages. Or you could volunteer to let others edit the articles, while you make suggestions on the talk pages. Personally I would welcome your input -- which I promise to take seriously -- because what's needed here are editors with a good grasp of the source material. I would say the same to any other editors who've engaged in off-wiki activism, from either direction, so this isn't directed only at you. The article should be written by Wikipedians who are entirely uninvolved. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't make threats. Just do what you're going to do. I've worked with you before on the Michael Jackson article. I know you're a control freak. I made my mistakes when I first came to this article but I was getting along fine until you showed up, and trust me there are a lot of editors who are not speaking out about your behavior who I believe would go to bat for me in any disciplinary action. Brmull (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not a question of numbers who would "go to bat for you." It's that when you're posting comments off-wiki such as "Like Pacelli I’d would have just called Knox a bunch of nasty names that she will hopefully not soon forget," you should not be editing articles about that person on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If you believe there is a problem bring it up at the appropriate noticeboard. As for here: Comment on the edits and not the editor. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think you should consider attributing this speculation to Dempsey:

"There was a bloody outline of the knife on the bed, where the killer appeared to have laid it down, a bloody handprint on the pillow underneath her, and streaks of blood on the wall as if someone had tried to wipe the blood off their hand. Two towels from Kercher and Knox's bathroom were lying under her body, drenched in blood, and a third was on the bed, also with some blood on it."

That the killer appeared to have laid it down is speculation, although it may be true. It needs a back up source, which I can't find. Same with "as if someone had tried to wipe the blood off their hands". "Two towels from the bathroom" is quite dubious and speculative. How could anyone know where the towels came from? Knox testified she kept her towel in her room. Brmull (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dempsey implies that the forensic people established the towels came from there. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Dempsey implies the forensic police established the origin of the towels, but given that it would have been impossible for them to know, there should be a corroborating source that says it explicitly (there is none), or it should be left out. This may seem like a trivial point, but to those who follow the case closely, having towels in the bathroom is crucial to Guede's alibi that he went to the bathroom twice to get towels. We need to be cautious about this. Brmull (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Guede claimed Kercher met with him on Halloween, but her friends testified that they had gone partying with her, and none of them saw her talking to Guede.[7] Guede claimed Kercher was fully dressed when stabbed, but blood spots on her skin indicated that her T-shirt was pulled above her bra when she was stabbed.[7] Guede claimed the white pillow remained on the bed, but it was found under the body, marked with his left shoe print (from Nike Outbreak 2 tennis shoes) and his palm-print in blood.[7] Guede claimed that he did not return to undress and move the body, but the bra and severed bra strap had DNA matching Guede's DNA genetic profile,[7] Here is the ref for that ↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 Micheli Judgment (Motivation) 2009-01-26, recap for October 2008 trial of Rudy Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English): Translate.google, Italian webpage: Pen.it.
I don't enjoy bringing these things up but, how does Guede's 'alibi' explain the above? Why did he take off her bra and put a pillow under her hips? Are we to assume someone did these things while he was out the room getting towels on 2 occasions after the the pillow was convieniently marked with his left shoe print (from Nike Outbreak 2 tennis shoes) and his palm-print in blood. If it does not explain those things the issue of the towels is indeed trivial.Overagainst (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying Guede's alibi is credible or not credible. My point is that Dempsey is the only source that says "towels from the bathroom". She could not know that. Nobody could know that. It must be either speculation or a mistranslation of "bath towels" and should not be included. Brmull (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
She says they were the two towels missing from the small bathroom. I'm not sure what difference this makes, in terms of whether it is, or isn't, what Guede also said (hardly an alibi). I'll look around for a second source nevertheless. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Deal

Although I am aghast at being smeared with my own off-wiki comments in an attempt force me to the sidelines, in the interests of moving forward, I'm willing to accede to your central demand. I do not accept that an editor should be banned for anything other than non-constructive editing. But, since you've offered to serve as a kind of intermediary, I will give you 24 hours in which to respond to all subsequent comments on the talk pages of this and related articles before I exercise my right to edit. Brmull (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "I do not accept that an editor should be banned for anything other than non-constructive editing." I think if Wikipedia were hosting a biography about you, you would strongly object if we allowed it to be edited by people who had been hounding you off-wiki, who had insulted you in very serious terms, and had insulted reliable sources who wrote about you, including in one case a source's wife. And I'm sorry, I can't accept a 24-hour ultimatum, though as I said I promise to take your suggestions seriously.
Also, I want to make clear again that this isn't directed at you alone. It's problematic for any of the activists in this case to be editing the article, though suggestions on talk are very welcome. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Left over issues that remain to be addressed include:

  • You've removed the fact tags that two of us put on "less salubrious edge of town". The Massei report says that Le Chic, rather than the cottage, is in the less salubrious part of town (p. 376). Please source or remove.
  • I noted that Dempsey is the sole-source for Amelie ending at 9:10. The Massei report (p. 303) makes clear that 9:10 was the "last access" to the movie file, and lists any number of things that could have be done to the file besides the movie ending.
Can I ask whether you've read Dempsey? As for Massei, beware of relying on that too much. It's a primary source that strongly favours only one side, and it was recently found to be faulty. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
"Less salubrious" source added. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Other issues:

  • Most sources say that Romanelli's windowsill is 13 feet off the ground (here for example). Massei (p. 49) says "more than three and a half metres".
  • "Sisley bag" is ambiguous, since Sisley makes handbags. It was a paper shopping bag.
  • Should say the carabinieri arrived "around 1:30" (Massei p. 130). Their exact arrival time was not noted and is controversial.
  • My preference would be not to name Knox's sisters for privacy reasons, but it's your call. The way it's worded is vague as to whether Knox grew up living with her mother or father. It's also vague as to whether the parents are still working.
  • Knox was not "called to the police station" on 5 November. Sollecito was called. She accompanied him because she did not want to be alone. See Nadeau, and also Burleigh (p. 189).

Brmull (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take another look at those issues, thank you. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Can't find a source that says the Sisley bag was paper, but I think it's clear it wasn't a handbag.
  • Added around 1:30 pm.
  • Clarified who was called to the police station. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Let the record show that you rejected any compromise other than for me to ban myself from editing because of my alleged off-wiki views. If this policy were applied wiki-wide about 200,000 editors would be banned. I am being singled out solely because I do not use a pseudonym to edit. My edits are almost exclusively fact-checking. If anyone should be banned it should be you for blowing off consensus, but I know that won't happen because a lot of people like it when you show up guns blazing and lay waste to all dissent. But bullheadedness only goes so far on MoMK, and after you leave you will see partisans of both sides undo everything you've done. See you at ArbCom. Brmull (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Errant, I'm trying to fix the article up so that it roughly meets the FA guidelines (though I don't intend to submit it). This is a process; I can't do it overnight, especially not on the current machine I'm using. You're removing things that the reader needs for flow; remember that readers will not start at the top and read to the end, so little bits of elaboration and repetition are needed so that people dipping in can pick up the thread. Also, it's a small point, but "see you later" isn't only an Americanism; it's used throughout North America to mean goodbye. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - for a number of reasons. The major one is that it strikes me as confusing the flow of the article to be talking about events that occured at the time of the murder, then switch to future matters. And then later, basically repeat who Lumumba is and where she works feels highly redundant. I percieve your argument, but disagree that it is relevant - we can't predict where people will pick the article up - and it feels selective to be repeating just these things. More importantly it is not important in understanding that sections focus to clarify exactly who Lumumba is and where Knox worked - you note I left the explanation about what she was replying to in - this establishes the relevant context to the interview focus. The art of good writing is to put that in front of the reader without running down irrelevant sidelines :)
Also; I'm not sure why you restored a lot of the odd sentence structure and stodgy language (lots of his anr hers, a few missing words that made the language informal etc.). I don't have a problem having those changes rolled out with justification - but it would be nice to see a few done at a time with the justification explained. (e.g. "saying Knox had been" - grammar wise needs "that", " having made these claims" - these == totally wrong tense, ", but there was friction" - run on & not very easy to parse grammar, "he was eighteen" - lots of "he" in that sentence makes it tough to read). I carefully note as much as I can in my edit summaries to explain these changes - the same courtesy would be nice.
I appreciate you are trying to improve the article it looks great - but it also feels a little owned right now (sorry, but that is my feeling). I am a pretty decent copyeditor and you've rolled back some really stodgy sentences with no real reasoning... can we not work together on this - it feels a self-defeating if your the only one who can rewrite material.
I agree on the Americanism issue and your change was better - as you note, I chucked it back in straight after (and would have the first time except I edit conflicted :)) --Errant (chat!) 22:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Please don't revert again, Errant. There is content that still needs to be added, if you want to help. And it's fine to occasionally repeat a full name to help the reader, so please allow that to be done. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree and think we should discuss it - what do you think to my careful explanation for the removal of confusing duplication? My main concern, though, is an explanation for why you summarily restored copyedits that were simply grammar/structure changes with the summary "slight tweaks" - that is very disappointing to me. Especially as it restored some really stodgy material. I'm not aiming to fight or anything :) but I simply do not see any improvement in that reversion. --Errant (chat!) 22:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is now ridiculous and childish. Improvements to the writing are being reverted, as is new content. You lot had your chance to fix this article, and didn't take it. Please give others a chance now. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no "your chance" or "my chance". There is no point at which the article is "finished." Errant is being way more gracious about it than I'm willing to be. Getting the article to FA status is not an excuse to spurn the collaborative process. If Jimbo has granted you special authority otherwise then you and Jimbo need to come out with it. Otherwise I insist that you provide real edit notes, hear out other editors' concerns, and most importantly respect consensus. Brmull (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Brmull said "There is no point at which the article is "finished". the 'consensus' you referred to was among a handful of editors who seemed to have thought that the article could be frozen much as it was as it was before the Italian court decided a miscarriage of Justice had taken place. The main 'collaborative process' going on was tag team reverting (an extremely unpleasant process to be subjected to, a bit like the tag team interrogations Knox suffered).Overagainst (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The less salubrious, bad area

Here's a cite from La Stampa calling the area around the cottage a bad area. I still say it's a mischaracterization to say it's widely regarded as a bad area, because weasel phrases are to be avoided. For example, I don't regard it as a bad area. It looks beautiful to me. I've heard many people say the same. Dempsey's "Locals called it a brutta zona" is also a weasel phrase that she uses to create a sense of forebodding. The phrase is literally a horror film cliché. Who are these locals? One person she met on the street? The author of the LaStampa article? The most correct thing would be to say that there's a lot of drug dealing and pickpockets around piazza Grimana. Follain's book is a source for that. Brmull (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Several sources say the house was in a bad area. I could have added more detail and sources, but I didn't want to over-egg it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"borrowed a history book, saying she would return it by 10 am "

I'm not sure why this quote from Dempsey is so important that it keeps reappearing in the article. The Micheli report says that Meredith told Robyn she would return the book as soon as possible. Follain's book, which is extremely detailed on this point, says that Meredith and Robyn were to meet at 10 am for class but makes no mention that Meredith would return the book at that time. Readers of the article are going to wonder what the big deal is about the time 10 am, and in truth there is no big deal. I think it's WP:UNDUE. Brmull (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw in the history that you'd removed this once before. I think the significance may be that, if she was intending to read and return the book before class the next morning (which she thought was at 10 am, though it wasn't that day), she probably wasn't going home for a pre-arranged date with Guede, as he claimed. But regardless of the significance, one of the key reliable sources mentions it, one who has interviewed various parties.
Where in Micheli's sentencing report does it mention the book? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now I know why it's important. Thanks. Here's Micheli:
"Butterworth loaned out a history book to Meredith, and felt that her friend should read it and return it as soon as possible." Sapeva peraltro che la B. aveva prestato a M. un libro di storia, e riteneva che l’amica intendesse leggerlo per restituirlo prima possibile. Brmull (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It doesn't contradict what Demspey wrote, just goes into less detail. Also, we should be wary of using that as a reliable source for anything other sources disagree with, because it contained material about sex games gone wrong. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"On October 31 she attended a Halloween party [...] The next day she called her mother Arline, as she did every day, to discuss plans for her return to England. Meredith told her mother she was tired after coming back late from the party the night before and that that night she was going to watch a film with some friends. She planned to come back early as she had an essay to finish and also had lectures at 10am the next day, with exams approaching" SOURCE:Meredith Kercher murder: Background to the Perugia killing 28/9/2011. Overagainst (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Witnesses

  • "Her apartment's windows were double-glazed and faced away from Via Della Pergola 7" -- This is a misquote. Dempsey goes on to say that her bathroom window faces in the direction of the cottage. Furthermore here's Follain (Ch. 8): "For the past twenty years she'd lived in her east-facing, first floor cottage. From her window, Capezalli could see Via della Pergola and the cottage roof and part of the terrace." I'm not saying Follain's right--I need to research it more--but there's definitely a conflict of sources.
  • "city centre". This is confusing to me. On the one hand Piazza Grimana is on the less salubrious edge of town, and on the other it's in the city centre. By city centre I assume the writer means "old city" or "historical district". It would be most accurate to say that the cottage is just outside the old city, and piazza grimana is just inside the city walls. Brmull (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Related Civil Proceedings

The first sentence of this section doesn't seem to be applicable any more, so I think it should be removed. Everything else deals solely with Knox and her family and related only tangentially to the actual murder of meredith kercher (the actual subject of this article). I propose that this section should be deleted from this article as off topic, and moved in the Knox article.LedRush (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Knox article doesn't survive the AfD it should return here ;) --Juanm (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, another editor asked how these aren't related to the case. The correct question is how related they are to the murder, which is the putative subject of this article. While tangentially related to the murder, the cases (other than the one apparently vacated) deal only with Knox and her family. They are not important to the murder and fit far better in a trials article or (best) in a knox article.LedRush (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the murder and everything that followed from it, so these cases are clearly related. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really encompass everything that followed it. My point isn't that there is no relationship between these cases and the murder, but that the relationship is tangential and, consequently, because they only relate to Knox they would be better included there.LedRush (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
They also relate to Lumumba, prosecution and trial and therefore to the murder.TMCk (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see above.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is about the murder and its legal consequences. It is not just about the killing itself. People who come here want to see a summary of material reliable sources have written consequent upon the murder of Meredith Kercher. Who, what, where, when, why, how? Who said what? What happened next?
I'm not quite getting why people repeatedly want to remove material that helps the reader understand what happened. If we get to the point where the page is 15,000 words long, we can do that, but it's 8,885 words at the moment, which is fine. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I have stated my reason above. I think the proper place for talking about a slander case against Knox and her parents is in the Knox article, not here. Yes, there is a tangential relationship between the murder (the subject of the article) and the slander case against Knox's parents, but since there is a much better place to discuss that article, why distract from the subject here. Does the current information do harm here? No. I simply think that people would expect to find this info in the Knox article and it fits better there. These cases don't need to be mentioned here at all to understand the murder and the murder trial. However, if you disagree, we could always summarize the cases here and link to the Knox article, which would deal with these Knox-specific cases in more detail.LedRush (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The legal proceedings specifically prosecutions, stemming from the murder are the basis of the article. Knox was prosecuted and given prison time for what she said in the statement. When she tried to defend herself by saying about how the police obtained her statement she was prosecuted for saying that and was scheduled stand trial on those charges and facing more prison time when she was released. You can't include that and then not mention that her parents were prosecuted for repeating in a British newspaper interview what their daughter was prosecuted for saying about her how her statement was obtained. They are indeed 'Related Proceedings' - which carried years in prison as the penalty of conviction. Very relevant IMO Overagainst (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I have never argued that there is no relation between the cases and the murder, so it seems odd that that is continually brought up. Regardless, is there a reason that Knox's civil case against Fiorenza Sarzanini should be in the murder article, rather than in the Knox article?LedRush (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It is already in the article that Amanda Knox was an inveterate journal keeper and that this was part of her downfall. Sarzanini's book appeared shortly after Knox was indicted but before she went to trial, and was a bestseller in Italy (a popular Christmas gift). It used transcripts of witness interrogations, legal documents not in the public domain, selected excepts from diaries and journals which had been seized by the police and personal information which had been obtained in prison by an unidentified man, who claimed to be a doctor, falsely telling her telling her she had tested postive for HIV. There was also an totally unsubstantiated (fabricated) account of a night with her by a man that no one has heard of. Obviously the publication of the information in Sarzanini's book was only possible because the prosecutor authorised it, it was part of the prosecution's effort to convict her of the murder of Meridith Kercher. It is not often that someone in the circumstances that Knox was in can win a civil case against an author. The information definitely belongs in this article.Overagainst (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
While your account is interesting, I don't see this information as being very relevant to the murder. Do you have any reliable sources which connect this civil case as being important to understanding the murder? This information currently is in the Knox article (as it deals exclusively with her).LedRush (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the court case helps the reader to understand what happened. What you call a 'civil' case is is intimately connected to her prosecution for the murder and conviction at trial. A book like that, published before the trial with the assistance of the prosecution is inconceivable in Britain, America and many other counties Those are noteworthy facts. I'll leave editing, talking about (and reading) the 'Knox article' to others. Why do you want to minimize the significance of this highly relevant court case (and so many other things) to this article? Overagainst (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that there is a better place for this information, and that it doesn't belong here as it is not very relevant to the murder. So, were you able to find any reliable sources which connect this civil case as being important to understanding the murder?LedRush (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
"I propose that this section should be deleted from this article as off topic, and moved in the Knox article". If you think that you are misunderstanding what articles are about. Let me give an example there is an article 'Vitamin D' which includes information about vitamin D poisoning. There is also a 'Hypervitaminosis D' (vitamin d poisoning) article. But the information in 'Vitamin D' about vitamin D poisoning was not taken out of the main article when the specific article about Vit. D poisoning was created. In fact the best (most relevant) information will tend to be in the most carefully edited article which is is likely to be the main one. There are a variety of possible motives for spinning off articles, some of them rather nefarious. Someone could create an extremely specifically titled article and use it to remove information from the main article that they just did not like, for example.Overagainst (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree this material is related to the event here, and is not something that should be cut. Per SV. The material is all part of the event that encompasses the murder, trial and release of K&S. I don't see any good reasoning to cut it - other than to help legitimise the Knox article. --Errant (chat!) 13:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I concur. Particularly as both articles are in a high state of flux; one being written, and the other being extensively redrafted. pablo 13:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC brmull's (my) alleged confict of interest

I would like to get a wider consensus on this since I am being effectively banned from editing by SlimVirgin. Please comment at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher Thanks and I will out no one who participates! Brmull (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In that page another editor is also complaining that I have a WP:Conflict_of_interest and I have addressed that there although I don't think I have contributed much to this page anyway other than a section on the Italian justice system. Connolly15 referred to "outing" me through private emails as someone who is related to someone who has spoken in the media about the case although since I use my real name in editing and practice total transparency this seems like kind of a joke. Dougbremner (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The "outing you" reference is not a joke. It is the rule noted at the top of that page. An administrator requested I send an email (not emails) to her to avoid breaching this rule. I don't see it as inappropriate in anwyay to bring your case to the attention of an administrator who is effectively blocking another user from editing on the basis of off-Wiki comments, which your twitter account also demonstrates. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC))
Let it go, already. Dougbremner (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Connolly15, No it was Brmull's on-Wiki activity. Overagainst (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New Book

Saw this review. Though it proclaims otherwise, this is obviously an extremely POV book (or at least the article about it is), but if the Guardian is reviewing it, it's probably worth putting in the bibliography. [13] LedRush (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it? "A prosecuting lawyer called her "a sorceress of deceit" (he also compared her to Joseph Goebbels). "They reminded the jury that footprints found at the crime scene were compatible with Knox and Sollecito and insisted on the credibility of a homeless man (clarification heroin addict/dealer/ professional witness in murder trials) who claimed he saw the pair on the night of the murder near the house in which Miss Kercher was killed, contradicting their alibis. " Amanda Knox compared to Goebbels by prosecutors.
This is POV too - 'You can't prove these smudges weren't made by you, we have a junkie to testify against you, now we've corrected his story (he originally said it was Halloween) he'll be as reliable for us as he was in 2 previous murder trials. You'll be 50 before you get out, ha ha ha'. That sentence contains more relevant information than the excepts quoted from the book in the review IMO. Burleigh's work is genuine journalism and far far superior in every way.
"Prosecutor Giuliano Miginini is, in my opinion, a rambling, confused individual,” says CNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin." Interview with Miginini. Overagainst. (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that stuff in the article, but whatever. So, are you saying the book should be included or shouldn't? I say it should be.LedRush (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The book is not self published and we have a review of it in a RS. So yes, I'd say it should be added the the article.TMCk (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it reads like clip job of newspaper rep0rts in the ITALIAN PRESS. let's take the things that the review points up, these are presumably the most telling.
It states- "It was immediately clear to detectives who attended the crime scene that a burglary had been faked. Windows had been smashed, but they were too high for a burglar" then it says "The flat's front door hadn't been forced." Sorry, but isn't that a circular argument?
It states without qualification that they bought bleach that morning "the fact that the young lovers had bought bleach the following morning suggested they were trying to cover their tracks."
"Doubts had been raised about the DNA evidence: the bra clasp had been found 46 days after the initial police search and contamination seemed a possibility."
No, contamination is a proven certainty "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 ( Interjection by Overagainst: I think 'she' here means police scientist Patrizia Stefanoni who was the only one to test the bra clasp, Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti couldn't retest the bra clasp because it had been allowed to get rusty. Vecchiotti and Conti used what records Stefanoni was able to supply of her results during the testing procedure to analyse Stefanoni's work) 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." Independent, Experts dismiss DNA evidence
A forensic science blog post."Based on the ‘additional’ peaks flagged by Conti and Vecchiotti there may well be DNA from multiple males in low quantity on the bra clasps. It does not seem likely that multiple male individuals would have touched the bra clasp with their hand. What then does the DNA evidence on the bra clasp mean? It is no surprise that Meredith Kercher would be the primary DNA donor on her bra clasp. Her DNA would be expected to be deposited on the clasps by her touching the clasp and by the clasp presumably having contact with her skin when the bra is worn. The DNA on the bra clasp that is consistent with Sollecito is at a much lower level and there is no information as to what type of cellular material is responsible for the DNA. It is not known when the DNA consistent with Sollecito was deposited on the clasp. [..] It has to be kept in mind that DNA testing is now extraordinarily sensitive, perhaps to a fault. DNA laboratories go through great lengths to ensure that DNA from analysts or other cases does not end up associated with evidence that is being processed. Laboratories and the tools used are almost obsessively cleaned with bleach solutions, and protocols include many steps to minimize the chance for contamination. Nevertheless, every DNA lab sees contamination at some point. The bottom line is that DNA can be easily transferred, and today’s sensitive DNA tests can detect transfers of low levels of DNA.[...]These factors have the potential to have introduced contamination onto the bra clasps. It is unclear how and when the DNA on the bra clasps got there. There are major concerns regarding the collection of the evidence. All things considered, the weight of the evidence of the finding of DNA consistent with Rafaelle Sollecito on the bra clasps is highly questionable particularly since this is the only piece of DNA evidence associating Sollecito with the crime."
UNDERSTANDING THE INDEPENDENT DNA EXPERTS’ REPORT IN THE AMANDA KNOX CASE (PART 2). Overagainst (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"Questioned about the analysis of Kercher's bra clasp believed in the original trial to contain Sollecito's DNA, one of the independent experts, Carla Vecchiotti said she found it contained too many traces to be reliable. [...]She said some of the evidence may have been contaminated by dust containing mixed traces of DNA, as well as through sloppy police work. Vecchiotti said that apart from the victim's DNA, she had found small traces of at least 17 other people including Sollecito and herself -- presumably as a result of her being the one who carried out the most recent tests.
"I didn't mention them in my report because there are too many," she said. "Your DNA could be on it, just like mine. Anyone's DNA could be on there!".

Knox appeal resumes with heated exchanges over DNA evidence. The police forensic scientist threatened to sue by the way, she hasn't. Overagainst (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I've added it to the bottom of the page. As stated, the criteria for inclusion are 1) not having been self-published and 2) having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Personal opinions about the quality of the writing and other matters count for nothing. SuperMarioMan 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The quality of the reporting is poor, known and proven contamination is reported as "seemed a possibility". In a word, that is wrong.Overagainst (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity. Have you actually read the book?TMCk (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
We should use the best sources. this is a very long way from being the best. Even Ledrush says that, contrary to what the review claims, the book is not at all objective. As for reading it, well presumably the reviewer actually read the book. I cited the fallibilty of the book on matters of fact. The very things the reviewer pointed up as established facts indicative of K and S's being involved in the murder are, at best, allegations by the prosection. At worst just wrong. Here is another one "No burglar, detectives thought, would have locked Kercher's room" (Er he was a murderer by that point) "Now, as the prosecution appeal to overturn the acquittal, there will probably be another trial" (Whaaat!). The Guardian ran this lauditory review of a hard line 'guilter' book ( it is) to balance its reporting of the case and not for any merit in the book. The reviewer will probably have his own forthcoming book reviewed by Follain in due course. Transcript of a live online Sunday Times discussion with foreign correspondent John Follain on Monday 7 March 2011. "Sunday Times Foreign Editor: Welcome to John Follain, foreign correspondent for The Sunday Times who has covered Italy since 1998. He has written a book about the murder of Meredith Kercher which is out in August (Ha!). [...] Folain: "Given that more than 20 judges have so far ruled that AK is guilty, I think the appeal court will head the same way - although it could reducer both the sentences for both her and Sollecito. [...] the key hearing will be in late May when the court-appointed experts report back on their review of the DNA evidence found on the kitchen knife believed to be the murder weapon, and on Meredith’s bra clasp in her bedroom. Yes contamination is in theory always possible but I see nothing to indicate that happened here." In view of the masses of US experts who said the DNA evidence was totally unreliable it is not clear to me why he would say that. I think Follain is in love with Italy and that has skewed his judgement. To be fair Follain is not stupid enough to think Amanda Knox inflicted the wounds to the throat of her friend Meredith Kercher. Even I was never stupid enough to believe that. There is no parrallel for such a crime to be committed by a young woman, not a one. Anyway, the fatal wound was not a slicing cut with a long bladed knife, the wound was 3 inches long and 3 inches deep it was a stab and rip such as only a extraordinarily strong woman could inflict on a well built girl like Kercher. You might as well say Knox can do a one armed pull up as say she did that. And a character like Guede is going to be ordered around by a 20 year old girl ? Overagainst (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
We should use the best sources. this is a very long way from being the best. I don't disagree, but the book isn't being used as a source, is it? (Does it appear in any of the article's inline citations? If so, I don't see them.) Your objections to this title are based solely on original research and personal opinion. To follow up the recommendations given by other users on your talk page, please focus your discussion contributions on the development of the article itself and refrain from adding speculation such as "To be fair Follain is not stupid enough to think Amanda Knox inflicted the wounds to the thoat of her her friend Meredith Kercher. Even I was never stupid enough to believe that" and "You might as well say Knox can do a one armed pull up as say she did that. And a character like Guede is going to be ordered around by a 20 year old girl ?" Such forum-style discussion is inappropriate for a talk page. SuperMarioMan 11:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The section opened with someone offering an opinion "is obviously an extremely POV book (or at least the article about it is), but if the Guardian is reviewing it, it's probably worth putting in the bibliography". I pointed out that it is likely the Guardian is giving a strongly anti-Knox book a review by a reviewer likely to be favourable so as to balence its coverage of the case. The merits of the book were discussed quite accurately. The review of the book states that "Windows had been smashed, but they were too high for a burglar" That is very much an opinion but, going by the review, in the book it is stated as a fact.
Here is an even more blatant example, going by the review the book says - "and the fact that the young lovers had bought bleach the following morning suggested they were trying to cover their tracks". That is not a fact AT ALL. I don't think there is anyone who would claim that can be said to be anything but an allegation which was part of the prosecution case, one which is very very hotly disputed. The book simply ignores the defence case and gives an account of unstubstatiated prosecution allegations as if they were facts. Development of the article will be damaged if this book can be quoted as a source it is demonstrably unreliable as I belive I have shown. The author interview shows it was originally going to be published in August and that it was delayed, obviously that was because the book was wrongfooted by the DNA review. The author said "Given that more than 20 judges have so far ruled that AK is guilty, I think the appeal court will head the same way". That is a strange way of looking at an appeal, it goes without saying that many judges would have to have ruled a defendant guilty in a case before they reached an adnvanced appeal stage. Now they have a book which claims to be the definitive one on the case and has come out at the right time and I think it is very bad book. I didn't like the book but I gave Follain credit for doubting that Knox was the ringleader who ordering Guede and S about as wall as being a torturer and the one who cut Kerchers throat. I gave reasons for that assertion; that there is no parrallel for a crime of that sort being committed by a two young men led by a young woman. (If you know of such a case please cite it.) So Follain is too credulous but has made some good judgements. I mentioned that I used to believe much the same as he seems to and that it now seems a foolish opinion to hold. There are many experts who think the injuries to Kercher are only consistant with a swift attack by a strong man and that knox is not phisically capable of inflicting the fatal wound .Overagainst (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I think what others are saying, Overagainst, and you are ignoring, is that the book is not used as a source at all. The criteria for inclusion is (appoximately) that it is not self-published or that it is otherwise notable (as evidenced by reviews in reliable sources). This book meets those prongs so it goes in. If you respond to this, please do not (a) create an unreadable wall of text; (b) point out incorrect statements in the article or book; (c) generally ignore the central issue of criteria for inclusion.LedRush (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
"If the Guardian is reviewing it, it's probably worth putting in the bibliography". I pointed out that it is likely the Guardian is giving a strongly anti-Knox book a review by a reviewer likely to be favourable so as to balence its coverage of the case.
(If you know of a case where a female has inflicted such a wound as Kercher suffered please cite it). My mode of expession may have been a little misjudged but the basis of what I said was sound. I don't think this book should be mentioned at all in the bibliography. Discussion of books has to involve some evaluation of their worth and why it is being reviewed in a major newspaper is part of that. I don't think this one was mentioned on its merits.(a self published book could get in the Biblio if enough people thought it was of value I think) At some point an opinion has to be offered as to the value of a book. That is all I was doing. A point of view can be advanced without openly stating it, I have noticed those quick on the draw with personal research/POV allegations are not without their own agendas. I prefer to be open about what I think. I'm sorry if you found it an affront to the high standards of this talk page, I'll moderate my tone in future. Overagainst (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we're supposed to look at value, especially as many of these books are by authors who either think K/S are innocent or guilty and the value of the books is judged very differently by a reader depending on their views of the same. There is a self-published book that is regarded very highly by people who think K/S are innocent, yet it is not in the bibliography as it does not meet the notability standards (and rightfully so, IMO).LedRush (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So just to sum up the insanity of your position, LedRush. Let's say there is a Wikipedia article about you. And let's say I write a book which makes the libelous claim that you are a child molester. The book is reviewed by the Guardian. Are you actually saying that you would defend the inclusion of that book in a bibliography contained in an article about you personally? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you find a policy on this which would support a contrary result? Of course, any such claims would not be in the article, unless of course my lawsuit agains the author/publisher hit the news.LedRush (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't my question. My question was this: ' Are you actually saying that you would defend the inclusion of that book in a bibliography contained in an article about you personally? ' CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst, Cody - you need to listen here. The criteria for inclusion are pretty much as LedRush has stated. Your judgment of the book's value is irrelevant. pablo 19:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The book contains libelous statements. Proven libelous statements. And I'm not talking to you. I'm waiting for a response from LedRush. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Cody, I thought I did answer it, but I'll do so even more clearly. Unless someone can point me to a a policy reason to not include, yes I would have to support its inclusion in the article. I would be pissed by it. But many policies on WP would piss me off if I had articles about me.LedRush (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit - You did in fact answer the question. But it's very easy when it's hypotheticals and you and your little Wiki buddies are safely hiding behind your keyboards, isn't it? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it makes it easier. But it doesn't change the result. BTW, I love how I'm punching bag to all the editors who had always taken the view that we couldn't explain the controversy on this page (they accused me of being pro-knox) and by all the new editors who wanted the article to describe the case more as the defense saw it, often at the expense of the prosecution side (they accused me of being pro-guilt). Gotta love it. Anyhoo, I don't know who my little Wiki buddies are seeing as everyone seems to publicly insult me and my opinions, but, whatever.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Not-self published and reviewed by reliable sources, so the book listing is restored. Bibby is cordially reminded to stop edit-warring and stop insulting others on the article talk page. Tarc (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Books listed under 'Further reading and external links'

Ledrush said "it's probably worth putting in the bibliography". I accept that Follain's book qualifies for inclusion in a 'Bibliography' section, however it is actualy included under a section called 'Further reading and external links'. By my way of thinking that does imply a degree of endorsement by Wikipedia. I think that there should be two sections, one section External Links and one called called 'Bibliography'. Overagainst (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegation that Guede was lone killer

If a section is called this it should summarise the reasons which those making the allegations it give for their assertions. Such a section does not claim to be definitive but just report the allegations. I feel the section is weak as though there is concern about not doing to Guede what others did to Knox/Sollecito. Please remember that Knox/Sollecito were the ones having allegations made about them by Guede and that's why people pointed out the holes in Guedes story. The prosecution didn't.

Guede claimed Kercher met with him on Halloween, but her friends testified that they had gone partying with her, and none of them saw her talking to Guede.[7] Guede claimed Kercher was fully dressed when stabbed, but blood spots on her skin indicated that her T-shirt was pulled above her bra when she was stabbed.[7] Guede claimed the white pillow remained on the bed, but it was found under the body, marked with his left shoe print (from Nike Outbreak 2 tennis shoes) and his palm-print in blood.[7] "There were five left Nike shoe prints in blood on the pillowcase that had been shoved under Kercher’s hips. There were three more bloody left shoe prints on the tile floor around the body, matching those on the pillowcase."(BURLEIGH) Guede claimed that he did not return to undress and move the body, but the bra and severed bra strap had DNA matching Guede's DNA genetic profile,[7] also on her body and handbag. Guede claimed he did not break the upstairs window in the third bedroom, but just 5 days earlier, he had been caught afterhours in a Milan school, with a laptop computer and mobile phone stolen from a law office burgled with a rock breaking through an upstairs window.[7]( you don't include the detail that it was an upstairs window) Guede claimed he had not stabbed Kercher, but when caught inside the Milan school on 27 October 2007, the local police searched his backpack and found a kitchen knife stolen from the school kitchen.[7].(Micheli) The footprints were all Guedes left Nike,and there was a small piece of glass embedded in a print made by the sole of Rudy Guede's Nike 2 Outbreak tennis shoe on the floor of the bedroom.(Telegraph) "The only identifiable fingerprints in Meredith’s room were Guede’s, although 14 were unmatchable" (BURLEIGH)

refs ↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 Micheli Judgment (Motivation) 2009-01-26, recap for October 2008 trial of Rudy Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English): Translate.google, Italian webpage: Pen.it., Guede's trial report Telegraph BURLEIGH, Guedes trial, Telegraph. Overagainst (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sollecito's lawyers said during the trial of Guede that a glass fragment found embedded in Guede's shoeprint at the scene proved that he had broken in though the window. Source:Guede's trial report Telegraph. If one fact is mentioned it should be that one. Overagainst (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I had a "Wtf?" moment with that section too. It notes the theory (and it is really the defence theory more than an allegation) and then goes off on a random note about a 2007 indicident - I don't follow the context of why it relates to showing Guede acted alone :) --Errant (chat!) 10:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Worth noting that this isn't a defence theory anymore. It was the conclusion of all the trials and appeals, which upheld only the conviction against him. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure 'theory' is putting it strongly enough. Guede had previously been found with goods stolen in a 'rock through an upstairs window cat burglary'. He had never been to the girls apartment but his DNA was found all over the victim and scene of the crime including in Ms. Kerchers handbag (theft). Raffaele Sollecito had been to the girl's apartment and had close contact with Ms. Knox, her clothing, her bedroom and some door handles, but the only exhibit which the police said had his DNA on it in Kercher's bedroom was the bra clasp. The independent experts got three months to deliver their report plus an extension of 40 days. They totally discredited the knife from Sollecito's kitchen as evidence (wasn't scrubbed, had potato starch on it not blood, the claimed identification of Kercher's DNA could not have been done with the techniques claimed) Here is what they said about the bra clasp which was the other key piece of evidence. "The exhibit was retrieved 46 days after the crime, in a context that was highly suggestive of ambient contamination," (Most noteably it was handled with dirty gloves).Italian police 'used dirty gloves handling Amanda Knox evidence'. Overagainst (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this information. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It's probably me being thick; but I still don't understand the context of the 2007 incident. --Errant (chat!) 21:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It's just one of the sections that hasn't been fixed up yet. The significance of the previous incidents is that he was breaking into places, including using a rock through the window, and carrying or stealing knives. So the argument is that the break-in at Via Della Pergola 7 was his MO, and that perhaps Meredith Kercher walked in on him, while he expected the house to be empty for awhile. There is other material in his background that's interesting and very sad (and relevant). I've not added it because I'm worried about the article being too focused on making a case against Guede, just as it previously made a case against Knox/Sollecito. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Follain says Guede is entitled to a further reduction for his good behaviour and will be released long before the 16 years is up.Overagainst (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Telegraph, Tuesday 18 October 2011, Amanda Knox cleared of Meredith Kercher murder
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_35&oldid=1144417414"