Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Women's Shoe Part Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV #7 (Police criticisms)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV Issues update

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

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

8 is still being discussed above.

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

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

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

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

Mignini in the Micheli hearing actually referred to a "sexual and sacrificial rite" [2]. He was never directly quoted as referring to a satanic sect, more likely he had in mind a Masonic sect, a theory that originated with the local medium. The fact that he linked it to Halloween led to the assumption that it was satanic in nature, but I don't think he ever actually said that. Dougbremner (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Knox's signed statement

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

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

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

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

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