Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Judy Bachrach and the Larry King Live show

I am new to the Wikipedia talk page, I hope I can do this appropriately. As a preliminary disclaimer, I am a dual Italian-American citizen.

I find the "Italian justice system" section of the article objectionable.

It seems strange to me that the opinions expressed by one ecclesiastic judge on the roots and principles of the Italian justice, as recounted by one reporter in the context of a highly opinionated Vanity Fair piece, have a place in this Enclyclopedia.

I watched the cited LKL show, and was appalled by Bachrach's description of the case, much more based on mostly derogatory anthropological observations on Italy and Italians in general than on the specific matter at hand.

It seems to me that this section is solely based upon highly biased, personal opinions that do little to provide a framework for understanding the case and its wider context.

Is this note the proper way to propose that this section be eliminated unless profoundly revised? I do not think that citing the lack of alternate opinions is sufficient justification to include in the article an undocumented fringe view of a matter as complex as a country's legal system.

Thank you, Giuseppe Bertini —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giuseb (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Giuseppe. I agree, the section merely reports tittle-tattle. - By the way, you can sign your name by adding four tildes. Rothorpe (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The section is actually factual, but I wonder why on earth this much room is given to two appearances of a single journalist... Averell (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly, I will tag the section for bias. --Karl franz josef (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Inquisition" slur is repeated twice. This is biased and NOT factual. US Dept of Justice: "The Italian judicial system, based on Roman law and modified by the Napoleonic Code..." http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=106708 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.254.144 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For info, Italy (like France and others) operates the Inquisitorial system (as opposed to the adversarial system used in the USA. It is not better or worse, just different. Think of it like the US District Attorney), so the initial investigation is managed by an examining magistrate, called a judge. In major trials such as this one, the case is taken by a more senior judge and the trial is quite adversarial. Mapping this to the Inquisition is just pathetic. In my opinion, the section should be removed as the commentator fails the notability test - she clearly doesn't understand what she is talking about or doesn't understand what she has been told. Or she is being deliberately disingenuous. --Red King (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, this is not entirely accurate. In 1930, the Fascist Government enacted a Criminal Procedure Code, which opted for the inquisitorial system. This Code was not abrogated until 1988, when a new Criminal Procedure Code was promulgated. Under this Code, Italian criminal procedure is no longer an inquisitorial system; but it is not an adversarial one, either. Rather it is somewhat in-between. For instance, the examining magistrate is no longer a Judge, as it was under the 1930 Code (the Judge who oversaw the investigations was called Giudice Istruttore). It is nonetheless a Magistrate (called Pubblico Ministero, which roughly translates as "someone endowed with a public function"). There's a Judge, during the preliminary investigations, who is called Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (Judge for the Preliminary Investigations), who only seldom intervenes: he is the one who authorises the Pubblico Ministero to order the defendant to be incarcerated during the investigations, to prevent him or her from fleeing, from destroying or creating false evidence or from committing another crime, if there's the fumus commissi delicti (that means if there is convincing evidence - here, the decision may also be based on circumstantial evidence, if it is serious, precise and concordant - may that the defendant committed the felony). In Italy, there's no bail. So, a defendant who's been incarcerated can only appeal against the order of the GIP (the Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari) before the Tribunale della Libertà (literally, Court of Liberty). This Court can confirm, modify or quash the Judge's warrant. Its decision can be appealed against before the Corte di Cassazione (Cassation Court). The TL (Tribunale della Libertà) actually reviews all the evidence and must render its decision within fifteen days of the appeal. The Corte di Cassazione, on the contrary, can only be asked to evaluate if there has been any errores in procedendo or in judicando (the Court of Cassation cannot rule on merits). The GIP can also authorise the Pubblico Ministero to order that the defendant be wiretapped. Apart from these authorisations, the preliminary investigations are carried out by the Pubblico Ministero, who must not only look for evidence that may lead to a conviction, but also he must look for evidence that may prove the defendant's innocence.

It is important to note that any ordinanza - ordinance - must contain the legal reasoning that led the Judge to pass it.

That said, it must also be noted, though, that the defendant is allowed to investigate on his own, in order to prove his innocence. Furthermore, in the event that an autopsy should be carried out, the defendant must be allowed to appoint an expert, who will assist and, basically, keep an eye on the expert appointed by the Pubblico Ministero. More in general, whenever the Pubblico Ministero appoints an expert, because he needs an examination, the defendant must be allowed to appoint an expert too, or the said examination will not be considered admissible in court. When the preliminary investigations are through, the Pubblico Ministero must present all the pieces of evidence he gathered to the Giudice dell'Udienza Preliminare (Judge of the Preliminary Hearing). During this hearing - the Udienza Preliminare -, the defendant can make his case, he can prove his innocence. If the Judge is convinced that he's innocent - or that there's no enough evidence to justify a conviction by the Giudice del Dibattimento (Judge of the Trial) -, he sort of acquits the defendant. He passes a sentence of non doversi procedere (it is not opportune to proceed). If, on the contrary, he thinks that the evidence gathered so far is enough to justify a conviction, he delivers a decreto - which would translate as decree, but here it means a kind of ordinance - of rinvio al giudizio - which means that the defendant is, basically, sent before the Judge, to stand trial -. This decreto does not indicate in any way the legal reasoning the led the Judge to deliver it.

All the evidence gathered so far cannot be admitted during the trial; only the evidence that cannot be renewed, such as an autopsy or a search and seizure, can be. All the other pieces of evidence must be rinnovate - renewed -. This means, for instance, that all the witness must be examined again, before the Judge, and the defendant must have the opportunity to cross-examine them. The experts must be heard again and so on. The defendant, also, has the right to summons witnesses and, in general, to prove his innocence, in any way he sees fit.

If the Giudice del Dibattimento - Judge of the Trial - is convinced beyond any reasonable doubts he's guilty, the Judge must convict him; if not, the Judge must acquit. The Judge must also explain the reasons that led him to convict or acquit.

Both the defendant and the Pubblico Ministero, then, can appeal against the sentence before the Corte d'Appello (Court of Appeals), that will retry the defendant. The judgement passed by the Court of Appeals can be appealed against before the Court of Cassation, that cannot rule on merits. It is important to stress that both the Court of Appeals and the Court of Cassation must examine and rule on every appeal. They can confirm, modify or quash the sentence.

It is important to note that Italy does not try anybody by jury. Everyone is judged by professional Judges or by a panel of Judges (three or five). The only exception to this is the Corte d'Assise, that is made up of eight Judges, two of them are professional, six are lay (they are called Giudici Popolari, popular Judges and must wear a sash in the national colours). They are not technically jurors. In Italian, Giudice (Judge) refers both to the eight of them together as a collective body and to each of them considered separately as a member of that body.

Since they are not Jurors, but are Judges, they cannot be excused, unless there are grounds that would justify an objection to a Judge.

They are not sequestered because a Trial lasts too long... Amanda's trial was particular speedy (only one year); there are some defendants that are still before the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing after three years of the felony they committed. To keep a citizen - who continues to work, while serving as a Popular Judge - sequestered for a year or more is, quite frankly, unfeasible.

Sorry for being this verbose. I hope I clarified some of your doubts. 151.48.165.93 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, this is great stuff! It would be really valuable if you would get a sign-on [which can be as anonymous as you like) and then use it to update the Examining magistrate article (which is really rather thin and mainly based on the system in France) - certainly you could copy and paste the text above into it. If your supporting citations are in Italian, that doesn't really matter. I urge to do so. --Red King (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent piece of work, very informative and well structured. I would recommend placing your explanation into a new article about Italian Criminal Law or other (better!)title. There is a sad lack of such information on Wikipedia at the moment. It would only take a small amount of editing to make it more general and include citations. With the interest that the Kercher murder trials have engendered such an article would be welcome and timely. I totally agree with Red King's remarks. rturus (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'd be glad to try and write an article about Italian judicial system, but there are few problems: first of all, as you might have inferred, I am Italian, so I know very little legal English and I'm afraid I might translate something wrong; and second, that, sincerely, I do not deem what I wrote earlier to be very encyclopaedic. I was trying to write sort of a narration, that could explain how come a defendant gets convicted in Italy... If you take a look at the article, when it is finished, to make sure I did not write anything nonsensical. 151.48.177.135 (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution would be greatly appreciated and of course we will be happy to assist you with "polishing" the article. Please create an account at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup so that you can have a) a unique username and b) wider editing rights. If you post a message here when you have posted your article, we can then help you complete it. Thanks, grazie e ciao! rturus (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not finished, though, because I still have to deal with "special proceedings", such as the fast-track trial. But it is a beginning... Salvio giuliano (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well done, a really good first article. We can discuss "polishing it up" on it's own talk page. Thanks Salvio. rturus (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Seeing as the suspects have their own infoboxes, surely Meredith Kercher should have one as well. After all, she is the victim, and as such merits an infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny that, I added one nearly two years ago and it was removed by an editor that said we don't do that thing! Swings and roundabouts on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.68.26 (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the victim should have an infobox as each of the two suspects and the convict do. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Article clearly biased in favor of defendants

One of Wikipedia's guidelines for articles is the neutrality of the author. This article clearly favors the defendants and, in particular, Amanda Knox. If someone wants to write on this subject, fantastic. But please revise to reflect more of the prosecution's evidence that supports its case. For example, there was a knife found at Sollecito's apartment with both Knox and Kercher's DNA. Also, Knox has changed her story so many times, it would be impossible for anyone on the jury to believe anything she says. I don't know if Knox and Sollecito are guilty or innocent. But the author(s) of this article seem to. They are not journalists and this contribution has serious flaws. -SeriousFred (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been supporting wikipedia financially but I won't do so in the future. They should finally hire some professional editors. Every other article of a defendant in a serious crime while on trial gets a hideous pr whitewash in favour of the defendant. This is a joke and it has to stop. People running wikipedia now for better or worse have a very responsible position, the have to respect that. To all the editors here: Congratulate yourself for whitewashing another article. Also the attacks on the italian judicial system are ludicrous. Who the heck do you think you are criticising a nation's penal system, a nation that is far more historical than the old U.S. of A. and arguably more cultured to. As soon as a U.S. person is standing trial abroad a huge pr machine goes in place, which is all good and well by some, but that doesn't have a place in what is claimed to be a world encyclopaedia. The accused here should actually be thanking her lucky stars because if she had been found guilty in most states of the United States she would have got the death penalty. 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.44 (talk)

This article would certainly benefit from the attention of a professional writer. It will attract many readers and editors who are severely biased. For over two years, the British media has had a strong tendency to assume Guede, Knox and Sollecito guilty and the US media to assume that Knox is innocent. That, along with many people's bias for their own countrypeople, makes many of those interested in this case have strong views / biases about it. We need to present a fuller case so that the reader can gain a better idea of what actually happened. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Media portrayal - Independent quote

The quote from the Independent is excessively long. In general we summarise not quote. More importantly a quote of this length seems likely to breach copyright. I am inclined to replace the quote with a short summary but would welcome views, first. TerriersFan (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bold edit to the Media section

I did a bold edit to the craptacular "Media Portrayal" section. I was full of unnecessary details, newspaper quotes that were beyond any sane definition of fair use (yes, that makes it a copyright violation) and opinions of all people who might have one on that case. Just because one gazillion articles were in the newspapers, that doesn't mean we have to mention them all. The trick is to highlight the main lines of the debate without getting bogged down. I hope that the tone is also more neutral now and that it helps to take care of the POV accusations. Averell (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is Judy Bachrach?

Last time I checked she wrote for Vanity Fair which is not akin to the Harvard Law Review. I don't think she is credible to pass judgement on the Italian Justice System, no more than an Italian judge is credible to quote on fashion. The fact that this article has been reduced to vanity fair reports comparing the inquisition to the italian justice system is another sign of what a sad place wikipedia is turning it. Again, congratulate yourself editors that this article read like a gossip column by the american defendants pr machine. Brilliant work. 149.254.58.44 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine that routinely covers politics and culture as well as fashion and entertainment.--Gotophilk (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter that Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine. The section under discussion is biased due to the inclusion of Bachrach's opinion. If no opposing opinions are included, we are not following the accepted tenets of neutrality. Simply saying that no other sources can be found (which they can be) is not acceptable for an article of such current moment. The consequences of not appropriately addressing this problem will be the removal of said section. --Karl franz josef (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It does matter that Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine. 149.254.58.44 claimed that it's not; that's the point I was responding to, not the substance of the article. --Gotophilk (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact is that there are no "opposing opinions" as far as I see. If there had been a public outcry over her opinion, we would have to include that. But as far as I can see, there was none. If the world doesn't bring counter-arguments, it's not our job to create them. (Of course, if you find the public outcry, include it!). However, the only reason for deleting it would be the argument "it's not important enough". The arguments "she isn't right", "she isn't qualified" or such don't count. Averell (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • We aren't in a position to be arbiters of whether each particular source is biased or not. Our task is merely to represent all points of view, one of which is represented in the Vanity Fair piece. Blowfish (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Really, could where the bias is? The section reports that there was both "pro" and "con" media coverage and (to me) the tone seems pretty neutral. And yes, we report that this Bachrach compared the Italian justice to the inquisition; the reason is that she said that, and that she said that in front of millions of people. The article reports just that she said that, not that she's right. Nor is she presented as the only voice on the case (both of which would be NPOV). However, the article is not about the Italian justice system, and I don't see any reason to include a lengthy discussion on Bachrach's view of and qualification to comment on the subject. Averell (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this particular paragraph should be deleted because it is of no consequence and is actually wrong. The Italian justice system is not "adversarial" like the USA system but "inquisitorial" and descended from Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code. In other words the judiciary doesn't balance the arguments of the prosecution versus the defence, rather it inquires into all evidence to seek the truth (although the appeal courts have now incorporated the "adversarial" system). To say that a defendant is "considered guilty until proven innocent" is just plain wrong. One reason that there might not have been a "public outcry" is possibly the fact that outside the USA not many people have heard about this woman. To assert that the Italian legal system is descended from the Inquisition is nonsense and insulting. Please remove this paragraph. rturus (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

@Averell, Blowfish, Gotophilk. Are you joking? What universal opinion? Do you think that the italian and european media go along with that trash that their system is based on the inquisition in the sense that it presupposes guilt? Of course there is disagreement with this opinion but no one really bothers with some american media to even reply to them. What is that garbage? I feel furious to even have to waste my time discussing this. That is why wikipedia should hire some professional editors. As I asked in the title of this discussion, who is this woman, on what authority does she speak? Because she is not reporting a fact, she is expressing an opinion, she is making a judgement? Does she have the authority to pass this judgement, of course she does not.

I am sick and tired of some wikipedia minders not making any sense and yet having their way here. I will delete this preposterous quote, If you want to re-instate it you should ask for consensus because it is clear a lot of parties consider it unacceptable here. And they those who do find it merits a place here are the usual hangers on with the agenda.

Let me sum up here the reason I am deleting it: The author of that quote in that american magazine does not have the authority to make a value judgement on a legal system because she lacks the background and expertise in Italian law. Moreover this is not a reputable publication to pass judgement on legal issues, because the don't have the gravitas or the expertise for that. If they were merely reporting a corroborated fact that would have been another issue, but they are not.

And let's not beat about the bush here, this is clearly put there to discredit a whole legal system, just because some American sociopath decided they would kill abroad for a change instead of their natural habitat which is the United States famous for having the highest obesity and crime rates in the world. And just because of some misguided patriotism a whole legal system has to be discredited based on a quote by some unknown on a U.S. rag.

The above three parties I mentioned please don't bother replying here, instead open a consensus vote because some of us here actually have a life and don't know how to. In any case I do not think your positions here are worthy of further response and I shall not respond to you. 149.254.56.40 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see the page has been semi locked so I wont be able to edit it. The morons here will have their way as per usual. I am off. Enjoy this piece of crap that wikipedia has become. 149.254.56.40 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All 11 counts?

Can someone find a credible link that states each count that both Raffeale and Amanda were charged with and can someone post this in the article? I keep revising when people type " GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS OF MURDER". Because whoever writing this is an idiot.... murder is ONE of the counts as is theft and sexual assault...but I didn't have time to write down what Wolf Blitzer said about the other ones on CNN. If someone could find this and post this...that would be nice. Thanks. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/04/italy.knox.trial/index.html states she was convicted on all counts excluding theft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.67.167 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
'All counts' (US) = 'all charges' (UK). Just one of those counts was Murder. There were others. --Red King (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate pages for murders, victims and suspects/convicts?

Can we consider spinning off separate pages for the principal players? If Street Fighter characters can have their own page, I think real, and currently newsworthy, people should not be consolidated into one messy umbrella article.

To be honest, I think maybe Amanda Knox should have her own given the amount of coverage she has received, but I'm not sure that she'd be found to be notably independent, that is, have notability other than being involved in this murder. I know what you mean about Street Fighter characters, but basically that's the nature of wikipedia at the moment and there's loads of people that clamour to keep articles like that and on dungeons and dragons and stuff. Stupid really, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basically says that even though they have those articles which probably aren't notable, you can't neccessarily have others Petepetepetepete (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is not (and should not be) about the people, but about the crime. The crime is noteworthy and the people are only noteworthy in their relation to the crime. We would have never heard of any of them if not for the murder. Also, I don't see that the article is particularly long or messy in a way that would require it to be broken down in separate pieces. Averell (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to give a separate article to anyone involved in the case; none of them have any notability outside the case. Guede committed crimes previously, but none of them are notable. Knox receives more media coverage than the others - because she is pretty. However, she is still not notable outside this event. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, none of the individuals involved are notable other than being a part of this event. No separate articles seem required. SGGH ping! 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Red King (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Less inflamatory article title

I suggest the article be called "Meredith Kercher murder case" or "The Meredith Kercher murder case" As it is the article suggest a description of the actual murder in perhaps a step by step basis and is more salacious. Hunter2005 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The article is about the crime, and the title is in line with other articles about such crimes, as Murder of Robert McCartney.
There is no doubt it was a murder; plus three people have been found guilty of it. The title is fine. Modest Genius talk 11:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Knox is from?

The lead states Spencer, Indiana; her section further down the article states Seattle both in the section and infobox. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I just Googled the words "Amanda Knox Spencer Indiana" and the only match is this article. All the news reports are saying she's from Seattle, so that's what it should say here unless someone can find a reference that backs this up. It's possible I suppose that she was born in Spencer, Indiana and moved to Seattle. Whatever the case, however, as the information is not referenced I'll change it to Seattle. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t generally put murder cases on its front page news

I guess the reason behind this story being there is because it involves an American, and this created something of a media storm. I should imagine that anyone else other than the Americans/British/Italians may find this slightly bias. Let’s say it involved a British person killing another British person, it certainly wouldn’t make the front page, because it certainly wouldn’t create as much media attention. But let’s just say it’s because of the intense media coverage that surrounded the warped and frankly hideous actions of Amanda Knox and also the scrutiny of her personal life, as well as the horrible campaign started up by a bunch of bible basing right wing Americans to try and get Knox freed based on nothing other than “She’s an American, we have greater rights!” cliché. And then theres the dubious Italian police coming under scrutiny too… All in all, I think this story does belong on the front page due to the mass media coverage and nothing else. Owell. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's gone. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume good faith just may apply here. From my own standpoint the nature of the crime, ages of persons involved and that it was an international case invovling different countries may be the reason that it was initally placed within In The News. You can't assume that every American Wikipedia contributor is pushing an "America First" agenda or all we'll end up with here are endless arguments and debates.Shinerunner (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It was removed due to objections on the In The News discussion area. SGGH ping! 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Shinerunner that is utterly false I was not talking about American Wikipedians, but the coverage in the media and that alone. Please retract your comment. Also, I have just clarified my comments to make them more clear and you should have no trouble in understanding them now. Instead of just accusing me, you should of just asked exactly what I meant. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if I mistook your remarks and have struck my comments. However, I've recently seen a number of very harsh statements by some editors regarding contributions from American Wikipedians. The way your original statement was worded (to me) fell into that type of comment.Shinerunner (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, and sorry I should have worded it better, my bad. There's no bias on the page form what I can see. It was sorted out (Checked the edit history). All is well. Thanks. (The media really have pissed on this case, that's for sure)...--Sushi Shushi! (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem, I'll be sure to ask for clarification from now on. Sometimes I just can't believe what people will post on here.Shinerunner (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The murder trial is on WP for the same reason that the OJ and Sacco and Venzetti trials are, namely that they are famous and controversial. Part of the controversy has to do with the sensational nature of the accusations, namely that this was a drug/sex/Satanism murder. I can't believe that no one has mentioned this, but this is not the kind of murder that women typically commit. There are exceptions, of course; Charles Manson had female accomplices. But they are exceedingly rare. That kind of killing is most often a "guy thing." But the nature of the accusations guaranteed media attention. Just like the famous trials mentioned above, there are noteworthy aspects of the trial that transcend the events in the courtroom, and they deserve discussion.208.73.29.10 (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Where does it say that this case involved Satanism? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Google "Amanda Knox" and "Satanic" and you will see many articles similar to this one: "Kercher slaying was part of 'satanic ritual', say prosecutors" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The media reported that the prosecution claimed it was Satanism, but it seems more like it was motivated by sadism and hate combined with the desire of the killers to overpower Kercher and force her into sex then kill her when she refused to comply. However, there is a lack of certainty regarding the motive(s). Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Feces/faeces

The British spelling is faeces. I added this comment before but somone deleted it. 86.42.206.219 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I take that it was you who removed two comments form the above discussion. Please don’t do this as it constitutes vandalism. Your original comment was removed because it wasn’t added to the talk page properly, and that was clearly explained in the edit summery I left. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.244.21 (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Appealed?

Um, the (appealed)note in the info box needs to be removed until April 2010 and it is not guaranteed that an appeal will be allowed. Under Italian law the convicted felon cannot appeal for a minimum three months after conviction. [1]Twobells (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Twobells: What is the standard for appeals? Is it that you must present an appeal with some merit or novel issue of law or it will not be heard, or is it that only a select few appeals are heard? Do you know the percentage of appeals that are successful? PilgrimRose (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An appeal is always allowed under Italian law and is always heard. The appellate trial in Italy is basically a new trial in which both teams can present their case anew. As for the 90 days period this is the maximum amount of days the judge has in order to file the explanation for the verdict (but he can file it as soon as he wish). An appeal is possible only after this explanation document has been filed. By the way also "convicted" is wrong as technically speaking she's still regarded as innocent under Italian law (at least until all the possible appeals are exhausted). I'm sorry I've no reference in English since US based media didn't care too much to explain to their readers the strong differences between the two different criminal law systems. --78.12.158.220 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Drugs

"Like Knox, he admits to having smoked marijuana on the day of the murder." She says earlier in this wikipedia article that she smokes hashish. Please clarify! They are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.226.129 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Most probably it is cannbis resin as this is the most common form of cannabis in Italy, also I've only heard american media report she had been smoking marijuana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.141.219 (talk)

"video of the five cannabis plants that were being cultivated in a small side room of their flat." Seattle PI (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/400193_knox15.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.231.67 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolute mess

This is an absolute mess. Wouldnt it be better if we just had some facts about amanda knox under that heading and all the stuff concerning the investigation under that specific heading. There no mention of Ms Knox changing her story and being caught lying by security cameras and the whole deal with ms knox being spotted outside a supermarket at 7:30 buying cleaning products when she claimed to be sleeping. These are all proven facts which should be mentioned.

Earlier versions of the article went into great detail about the evidence but biased editors have removed most of it: "I have culled the long lists of evidence recently inserted, as they were basically big blobs of less important information." and on this page, pre-11:21, 5 December 2009, a lot of evidence was tidied up by SilkTork.

This whole wiki article reeks of bias and should be sorted out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.141.219 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How about providing PROOF that she bought cleaning products? like a link to back up your claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.17.233 (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How about THIS http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5028729/Meredith-Kercher-murder-A-new-hole-appears-in-Amanda-Knoxs-alibi.html now.... on your way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then put it in the article itself if you don't see it and stop bitching about it from the side lines. Hunter2005 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added this factoid into the article. Next time as long as you cite a source and keep the language neutral you can edit it yourself. Hunter2005 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have done so myself if it was possible but I was unable to, and please, less of the profanities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Judy Bachrach paragraph

I would like to propose the deletion of the paragraph in which Judy Bachrach gives her opinion on the Italian justice system. First of all, the quote used has almost nothing to do with the evidence of the case and only addresses Bachrach's opinion on the Italian justice system which, I believe, doesn't have a place under the specific titling of this section: "Media Portrayal." By "media portrayal" it is inferred that it is media portrayal of the murder of Kercher, not of the Italian justice system which is a derived argument. While the paraphrase does mention that Bachrach has investigated the "contradictions in the case," the outcome of her research is missing. Finally, I don't believe that Bachrach, as a journalist for Vanity Fair, has the appropriate standing to comment on the Italian justice system; certainly not to a degree to be included in a WP article. I believe we should all attempt to approach this article in a rational manner and put our own personal feelings of the case aside which is our job as editors of a presumably "neutral" encyclopedia. I would like to hear others' feedback before changes occur.--Karl franz josef (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph in question mentions a judge, but does not state his name. If this info is to remain in the article, his name should be stated. If Bacharach is notable, she should have her own article. If not, why should so much of the Media portrayal section be about what she said? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The judge quoted in the Vanity fair article is "ecclesiastical judge Count Neri Capponi" - in other words, not a judge involved in criminal or civil law, only in matters of the Roman Catholic church (which would obviously have inquisition precedents). Therefore this is either a deliberate attempt by Judy Bachrach to discredit the Italian legal system or an example of her complete lack of understanding. If you actually read the article in question you can make up your own mind about this sensationalist and frequently erroneous piece, obviously aimed at a certain USA market. rturus (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It also claims that in Italian law "the ordinary person is considered guilty until proven innocent". This would clearly be in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". It is nonsense to suggest that the entire Italian legal system is in contravention of European law. Bluewave (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sub section media coverage on national basis?

One of the problems in finding a neutral position for this article based on suitable reliable sources, is the editorial position taken by each countries media. In the Italy three people have be found guilty under a fair justice system; in the UK, our tabloid press have exploited the seedier side of Knox's reputation, which has been semi-legitimised by the broad sheets; and in the US, various commentators shocked that any legal system could find any American guilty of such a heinous crime have been overly vocal. Hence, trying to find a neutral position amongst differing supporting sources and media angles will be improbable.

The facts of the case are that a young British lady was murdered in Italy, and so far an American lady, an Italian man and an Italian resident African have been found guilty and sentenced under an Italian legal system. The problem in writing that is in: the lack of clarity in the time lined story of how the murder happened (a continual police and prosecutor problem during the whole trial); the three different editorial positions taken by each countries media. To me this suggest that part of the articles coverage should be in highlighting the differing editorial positions taken by each countries media, other wise the differences and numerous re-writes can never be consolidated. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also say the Italian media has been doing pretty much the same as the British media in that response. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think a subsection for each country is necessary. Knox has received more coverage than anyone else involved. Basically, the American media has been claiming throughout that Knox is innocent. The British and Italian media were saying prior to this month that Guede and Sollecito are guilty. Italian and British media have tended to change their minds this month to claim it likely that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias/POV issues

Someone placed both Bias and POV tags on the article, and incorrectly didn't start a debate section on the talkpage - so happy to start one. Problems seem to be (add to the list where you feel appropriate):

  • No clear timeline or inclusion of evidence
  • No clear coverage of the court case, or debate within
  • Bias/POV against the Italian legal system
  • Bias on overtly debating Knox's innocence having been found guilty
  • Bias/POV on debates around Italian legal system through over exposure of Judy Bachrach article and US media exposure
  • Bias against American defendant on the basis of her nationality
  • Bias in presuming the guilt of defendants —Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimRose (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Misrepresentation of the substance of source articles.
  • Over-reliance on uncorroborated news items. -christaltips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.67.136 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also a tone of anti-Americanism, but this is presently conflicted and potentially balanced by overt tones of Knox's innocence post conviction. It seems to me in summary at present, a reader could get a more neutral point of view by reading the talk over the article. --Trident13 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good summary of the problems with the article. I read the article and felt it told me very little about the case but a great deal about people's (editors') points of view. By contrast, I read an article about the case in today's Sunday Times which set out the events, evidence and personalities involved, very clearly and without obvious bias. Bluewave (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with both of you. The invesitagtion/trial sections need more developement as well as the Bias/POV problems. Also, the main focus on Knox over the other defendants is unbalanced as well.Shinerunner (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be more focus on the actual evidence. The amount of attention to Knox doesn't seem unreasonable however, given the amount of interest that she individually has garnered in multiple countries. In Italy she has been demonized (justifiably or not); in the US she has been lionized as a saint (despite very little reporting of the actual evidence against her). Because of the attention given to Knox, there should at the very least be a discussion of her portrayal in respective countries, and accurate representation of the evidence against her as well as claims of innocence. Blowfish (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. However, undue weight should not be given to Knox's claims of innocence: it is not unusual for someone convicted of a serious crime to continue to proclaim their innocence, especially when there is an appeal pending. It is worth noting her claims, but they should certainly not be given more weight than, for example, the verdict against her, which was the result of a lengthy examination of all the evidence by the jury. We need to be a bit careful not to make the article look like a retrial by Wikipedia editors. Bluewave (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Blowfish that there's nothing wrong with extra focus on Knox, as she has been the center of attention in all the coverage that I'm aware of (mainly US coverage). I don't really have an opinion on the other issues as I haven't read the article closely. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Knox has received much more media coverage that Sollecito and Guede due to a few factors. She's female, attractive, has a supportive middle-class family and has the attention of the US media, which is significantly larger and more powerful and prevalent than any other country's media. As a result there is much more coverage of Knox that of the two men convicted. Guede has a substantial pre-murder criminal record, he is of bad character and his useless family aren't interested in their drug dealer son. It is not in the interest of the Italian media to focus on Sollecito, as it would increase the bad publicity that Perugia, and to a lesser extent Italy as a whole, has received since the murder. Perugia is now, in the minds of Britons and Americans, strongly associated with this murder; it is a fairly small city that is not internationally known for much else. This is a disaster for that city's image, but it does no harm to the UK or the US for the media of those countries to give prominent coverage to it. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we take the first issue I noted above - a timeline - and try to create something? I noted this afternoon from a rough translation of the Italian Wikipedia entry via Babelfish that their brief article has a better timeline to ours. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A timeline would be useful. This article also lacks details of what Guede, Knox and Sollecito said versus what has been proved and disproved as to who did what, when and where. The Italian version is better than this one on the timeline, but not much else, as their article is far too short. The Simple English article is tiny. In many instances there are details which have been disputed, but there is a lack of details in the article as to what the ruling was on those particular points and why e.g. footprint, knife. Did anyone back Knox's claim that she was not present at the house at the time of the murder? There is a severe lack of info as to what Sollecito's story is, such as during what timespan does he claim he was at his flat, and how far away from the murder scene is it? It seems Knox and Sollecito claim to have been at his flat together that night, but do the details of their stories match? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Here's a start on a timeline. This is how it was described in yesterday's Sunday Times (paraphrased and condensed):

  • Early evening, 1 Nov: Kercher visited friends. They ate home-made pizza and warched "The Notebook" on DVD

(agree timeline required - but surely in such a sensitive and complex case every item within the timeline requires references/sources. Are there no court papers available plus text of witness statements, forensics reports etc?. Apol not sure how to format this query.)

  • Shortly before 9pm, Kercher left her friends' house, accompanied by another friend, Sophie Purton.
  • They parted outside Purton's house and Kercher walked on alone.

What happened subsequently is disputed between the various parties. Mignini (the prosecutor) offered the following, based on the forensic evidence and Kercher's 43 wounds and bruises:

  • Kercher went home to an empty house
  • Shortly after, Knox arrived, accompanied by Guede and Sollecito

Are there any references to how Guede may have been known to either the victim or the defendants - there has been sketchy mentions of Guede being a drug dealer and/or local police informant (perhaps protected?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.143.119 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Knox and Kercher started rowing: either about some missing money or the fact that Knox had brought the 2 men to the house
  • The row escalated and the trio, under the influence of drugs, decided to involve Kercher in a violent sex game. The two men assaulted Kercher while Knox held a knife to her throat.

However no DNA evidence links Sollecito with Kercher or indeed the bedroom - given the amount of "rearrangement" that tghe defence claims occurred surely some traces would have been left amid this - are there any forensics reports linking Guede to the "faked" break-in? (I say "faked" as I read that the glass from the window was on top of the deshevelled bed, hence not a professsional cover up.)

  • Kercher screamed loudly and was heard by an elderly neighbour who said she felt as if she was "in a house of horrors"

And did this neighbour provide testimony in court? Did they hear one person escape or more, did they hear the smash of glass after the scream? etc etc??

  • Knox then stabbed Kercher in the neck
  • As Kercher lay dying, Knox and Sollecito fled. Guedo stayed and tried to staunch the blood with some towels. Then he fled too.
  • One or more of the trio tried to wash away blood, but left the bathroom sink stained with blood and bloody footprints on the floor that matched Knox and Sollecito's feet

So were there more than one set of bloody footprints left? Hence was Guede not a (an alleged) lone killer?

  • The trio broke a window to make it look like a break-in and locked Kercher's bedroom door.

The other protagonists have different versions of events

  • Knox and Sollecito's initial version of the story was that there had been a break-in at the house and that they had not been inside.
  • Knox's second version of the story was that the murder was committed by Lumumba, and that she (Knox) was in the kitchen, covering her ears because of the screams.
  • Knox's third verion was that she and Sollecito had spent the evening and night of the murder at his flat and had only returned to the house in the morning. Bluewave (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Has Knox ever explained why she was buying cleaning products at 730 in the morning after the murder - receipts found at Sollecito's apartment.

Even this timeline is biased - not biased but unsubstantiated.

The versions one and three given for the defendants Knox and Sollecito are one in the same. They are not inconsistent stories. Knox's story about Lumumba was given after 14 hours straight of interrogation and intimidation. What 20 year old girl would not have been frightened and intimidated, especially after being hit and called a "stupid liar". It is well known that people will make false statements when cracking under the pressure of a lengthy interrogation. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This was just my best effort at summarising the sequence of events, as related in the Sunday Times. I'm sure others can improve on it or develop it. However, the fact that Knox changed her story is relevant and I am sure it was a factor considered by the jury. Bluewave (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrim, the only claim of initimidation and physical/verbal abuse came from Knox herself (and was totally uncorroborated, of course) and, as a convicted murderer, she doesn't make the most convincing of witnesses. You need to cite your assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.1.168 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen the ruling myself, but I heard on the Larry King Live program that a high court in Italy found that Knox had been treated unfairly during her interrogation so that some of her statements made during the interrogation were not admissible at the trial. It would be vey helpful if there was some way to have a link posted to an English transcript of that ruling. PilgrimRose (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted a factual based timeline. If you read the early press reports versus the later stuff, the bit between Kercher leaving her friend at around 21:00 and being found the next morning after 12:35 is prosecution versus defence conjecture. All the defence witnesses changed their stories at least twice during the subsequent investigation, and the prosecution timeline (as is the case with most legal cases), is the one that emerges - which the prosecutor accepts is conjection. The subsequent investigation seems to warrant another section, in the how the police investigation went, the prosecution built its case, and the defence questioned it. The DNA evidence and the issue of when the bleach was bought are clearly key. I am also quickly coming to the conclusion that inserting such a section would remove much of the anti-American bias. We could then bring the character sections on Knox, Sollecito and Guede down to mini-bio's and how they ended up in Perugia. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-American bias and presumption of guilt

This article was written long before a verdict was rendered, yet it was written as if the guilt of the American girl and her boyfriend were presumed. The article has been written in a very biased manner, and attempts to make the article more neutral are being deleted.

An editor of this article, Sushi Sushi, has made blatently anti-American comments on this talk page. When I added a comment about that to this talk page, he or she removed my comment from this talk page, but left his offensive anti-American remark.

There are strong feelings in the United States that bias in the Italian media denied Amanda Knox a fair trial, by prejudicing public opinion against her. That will be a growing sentiment in the U.S., as more American writers look into this fiasco. I hope that Wikipedia will not join in worsening that injustice by allowing only a one-sided view against the American girl and her boyfriend to be presented in this article.

The point of view should be NEUTRAL, not only AGAINST Amanda Knox--who most Americans view as a badly victimized young girl. The point of view that she is innocent is shared by millions in America. That point of view should be allowed a little presence in this article, at least just a little bit. While the murder of young Meredith was a horrible tragedy from which her family will never recover, the real killer was already convicted before Amanda went on trial. PilgrimRose (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • @PilgrimRose - Yes the article should be NPOV, reflecting fact and not opinion. It should certainly not become a platform for people to crusade about their assumptions of misjustice or similar. American readers should remember that they have been subjected to a huge PR campaign by Knox family and associates, attempting to paint the most favourable opinion of Knox and trying to discredit the Italian justice system. They should research how Italian justice works, what the "jury" means over there and how procedures differ from the USA. Before decrying another country's justice system Americans should consider how the USA system appears to the world, for example the O J Simpson murder trial and the Guantanamo detainees.rturus (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rturus: I disagree with your personal opinion that American readers have been subject "to a huge PR campaign by Knox family and associates." The Knox family has expressed its opinion. The prosecutors expressed their opinions. People are free to chose which view they think is correct. Many in the U.S. are stuck on the forensics issue. The absence of forensic evidence in the bedroom where the murder took place showing that Knox participated in the sexual attack by Guede. No one is trying to say the U.S. system is any better or worse. It too is obviously flawed. The concern being expressed is the lack of forensic evidence that Knox participated in the brutal murder she was charged with. That is a legitimate concern. PilgrimRose (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@ PilgrimRose - Nobody is disputing that there may be concerns, there are nearly always concerns in any trial to a greater or lesser degree. However that is not a matter for Wikipedia, concerns can be reported and referenced for sure but this is not the place to mount a crusade - take it to a blog somewhere. My comments stand.rturus (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO PROOF or even any shred of indication that the trial suffered from anti-american bias, this is seemingly a complete fabrication by American Media. I heard that the fact that some of the jurors wore the italian colors was somehow anti American. However, this is just plain ridiculous.

This is not a FORUM to discuss your opinion on the trial. This is a discussion page for the article. If you don't have comments pertinent to the improvement of the article, please don't comment. --71.245.116.133 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted some statements from this section as they only provide personal opinion, pilgrimrose failed to provide any evidence to suggest anti-american bias and another user only posted a personal rant. PEOPLE PLEASE if you cannot provide anything constructive then do not post. There are forums on the internet where you can voice your personal opinion. This is not the place to do so. I also agree that refering to american citizens as 'bloody americans' is unacceptable. Pilgrimrose until you post something that comes close to resemble evidence of anti-american sentiment regarding the trial I suggest you stay away from this talk page. Bjorn I. Clever (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bjorn: It is not acceptable to be deleting someone else's comments on this talk page because YOU disagree with those comments. You had no right to do that. Nor do you have the right to tell me I cannot post on this talk page. Just who the heck do you think you are. I have as much right to post on this page as you do. DO NOT delete my posts again. PilgrimRose (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the notability and media coverage?

I've just looked through this article, and I think it's actually at a reasonably high standard given the amount of attention it's been under. However, something seems to be missing: it doesn't have a clear statement anywhere of why this is a notable murder case. It states that it received a great deal of media coverage from multiple countries (which it did), but doesn't really say what it is about this murder that made it so interesting to the media. Perhaps it's difficult to do that without violating No original research, but I feel that to be properly encyclopaedic, this article needs some sort of explanation of why this was such an important story in the first place. Robofish (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  • On 8Dec09, I had instinctively added an intro paragraph that summarizes the notability of the situation:  "The event initially appeared to be a routine one-man, rape/murder (with the man admitting he saw her die). However, it became highly notable in world media when prosecutors treated the event as a sexual torture/killing, allegedly pre-planned by 3 people aged 20-23 who had known each other less than 3 weeks." (added to article 8Dec09 1am) -Wikid77 03:53, 8 December 2009
"The case received heavy media interest." Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC).
Notability is sort of a meta question-- its discussion belongs on the talk page rather than the article page. As to why this particular subject is notable, it's because of the volume of coverage over a sustained period of time. That's what notability requires. Blowfish (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This case is notable because of the huge amount of media coverage it has received for over two years from the media of at least three major countries. The amount and prevalence of the media coverage is due to the fact it interests millions of people, due to several aspects of this case. The people involved are from different countries. It is the kind of case that can be sensationalised due to the alleged sexual motive. That the victim and one killer are young females makes the case more unusual and horrifying. Knox and Sollecito are from nice middle class backgrounds and did not have prior criminal records. It is the kind of case that raises emotions in the minds of a large proportion of people. The British media have reported the story with the suggestion of 'your daughter could be murdered by sexual sadists when she's abroad' and the American media have suggested 'your daughter could be wrongly convicted of murder by a medieval system when she's abroad'. Millions of people in the UK strongly relate to the Kercher family and fear going through what they have been through during the last two years. Millions of Americans relate likewise to the Knox family, and the horror of having what they see as an innocent daughter locked up in a foreign prison thousands of miles away from home. In addition, Knox is significantly above-average in the looks department. Rightly or wrongly, good looks tend to be strongly associated in most people's minds with good character, and ugliness with criminality and bad character. There is a strong subtext in the reporting by the US media of Knox that 'she can't have done it, because she's such a nice pretty girl'. This case is rare in that it possesses so many aspects that make it of so much interest to so many millions of people. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I wasn't questioning the notability of this article (someone changed the title of this section) - it's obviously a hugely notable murder case, because of all the attention it received. I was saying the article needs to explain why it received so much attention. Lkjhgjfdsa's comment above seems a pretty comprehensive answer - it's a shame we can't just put it straight into the article. :) Thanks anyway. Robofish (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oops, re-reading my post above, I see I wasn't terribly clear. It looks like I was saying 'why is this notable? This article should be deleted!', when what I meant was 'this was a highly notable and significant event, but the article needs to properly explain that'. Sorry for the confusion. Robofish (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Diana. Prepare to be hearing from me about this case a lot until it is finally resolved. I do not believe that the article gives ENOUGH credence to the flaws in the case against Knox and Sollecito. For that reason, it does not make explicit what the notability of the case is. The notability is that it is one of the most high-profile International murder cases ever to involve such an immense trail of procedural flaws combined with intriguing side-issues. It does not currently have a section discussing the interesting and related stories concerning Prosecutor Mignini, perhaps the most key figure in the entire drama, at least in sense of the trial. I am going to add such a section and will be vigilant about maintaining it, so I'm just warning anyone who plans to cry "impartiality" as a defense for persistently removing it, as I expect will be the case, in what have become the shark-infested waters of the once truly democratic world of Wikipedia. There should at least be a section entitled "Criticism of the Evidence" to present this information. The reason it is so important to include this information is that the cries of "Free Amanda and Raffaele" are not just coming from people who think they're cute. This man, Mignini, is under a serious investigation for fraud in his abuses of power and bizarre psycho-sexual theories that have already derailed another murder investigation and involved the harrassment and arrest of writers and independent investigators looking for the truth. Prosecutor Mignini (who also performed both the disputed interrogation and also directed the police, as is standard under the FLAWED Italian judiciary system) has a documented history of delusionary and complex theories that involve lurid allegations of a bizarre and psycho-sexual nature. Please see the false arrest and attempted prosecution by Mignini of US author John Baker and his Italian journalist colleague Mario Spezi, both of whom had done years of research on the notorious "Monster of Florence" serial killer case. http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/the-monster-of-florence/ Baker cannot currently return to Italy to continue his research because he is still under (false) indictment and at risk of prosecution. Furthermore, Spezi, an Italian citizen, has been subjected to intense harrassment, arrest and prosecution. Their "crime"? Refuting the insane theories of Mignini regarding the identity of the Monster of Florence. In that case, as in the Kercher murder, the forensic evidence points to a lone attacker, but the pet theories of Mignini involve outlandish and titillating things such as satanic cults and group sex orgies, and he also has a habit of ascribing depraved and occult significances to rape-murder cases that in all statistical likelihood have a far more depressingly mundane solution. An international union of journalists wrote a letter of condemnation and protest to Berlusconi about the situation (hardly the paragon of non-corruption himself) that is reproduced here: http://cpj.org/2006/04/crime-journalists-imprisonment-raises-alarm.php In the aftermath of his arrest and interrogation, which included efforts by Mignini to get him to falsely confess and/or incriminate his partner Spezi, Baker managed to be released for a time, during which he took the opportunity to flee the country. He has described an aggressive and terrifying interrogation, presided over by Mignini himself, that implied that Mignini knew that Baker himself was implicated in the very killings he was investigating. If you read the two links above, you will get the background of the case and you can then investigate others on your own, as I have, by researching it independently. Diana Trimble, Freelance Journalist, UK, Member, British Association of Journalists, USA and UK Citizen —Dianarama (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 December 2009

  • I agree with those views, and others have noted that readers will expect such text in the article. About 5 hours later, I had instinctively added an intro section noting the prosecution as an unusual scenario of a 3-person, sex-torture killing. -Wikid77 03:53, 8 December 2009
  • @ Dianarama - Please note that Wikipedia is not the place for you to spout your theories. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog space for self-publicising or crusading, so please stop. rturus (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a seperate page for the Monster_of_Florence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.231.67 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_4&oldid=1137027058"