Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Maria Cantwell rewrite.

Senator Maria Cantwell's statement: WA state Senator Maria Cantwell released a statement expressing her sadness at the verdict on 4 December 2009, saying that she had "serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted [the] trial". She added that "the prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty." [1] I would like to add this rewrite to the article. I think the current portion is too large. Maria Cantwell made one statement and hasn't been heard from since.Issymo (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He did call for an "authoritative intervention" but I think it was taken out of context. Here is what he said. "Ci vuole un suo autorevole intervento che possa mitigare le tante polemiche che la vicenda ha generato " . Soprattutto in America. [2] "One would like an authoritative intervention that could mitigate the controversy the case has generated." And then the reporter appropriately adds "overall in America". I.e. he is asking the President to get involved to help decrease the controversy the case is causing in America. This was mis translated as calling for an investigation of the prosecutor's office. Dougbremner (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-free images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partial Section Reorganization

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV Tag - Time to remove?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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