Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Lead Misleading

Rudy Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted on 28 October 2008 of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher. His fast-track conviction was upheld, and he is now serving a sentence of 16 years, reduced after he incriminated Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American.[1]

Reference 1 although a new article is misleading because it says "Rudy Guede, an Ivorian drifter with a criminal record, was also sentenced in October 2008 to 30 years in jail for taking part in Kercher's murder." There is no mention of his sentence being reduced to 16 years on appeal.

It implies his sentence was reduced because he incriminated the others, but they had already been arrested and found guilty. Also where does it say his sentence was reduced because he incriminated the others.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-22/world/italy.kercher.murder.american_1_amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-raffaele-sollecito?_s=PM:WORLD

Says the reduction was "The reduction was based on technical calculations prescribed by the Italian penal code, he said." The reduction was a standard reduction at appeal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder

Says "Guede's lawyer, Walter Biscotti, said his client's sentence had been cut after his youth and lack of criminal record were taken into account. The appeal court had reduced Guede's sentence to 24 years and cut one-third off as is custom when defendants opt for a fast-track trial, said Francesco Maresca."

The others were arrested before him and had already been convicted before his appeal. The lead gives the impression that their trial followed (and was caused by) his "incriminated" them.

Kwenchin (talk)

Basis of acquittal

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

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

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

(Source and original list)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe wait for the outcome of the DRV first before starting random articles?TMCk (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Support but agree with TMCK also. The difficulty is a bit of vagueness in the DRV discussion. Not clear how many editors want exactly what. I don't think there should be an AK article, but I also don't think there should be multiple new articles just to keep everybody satisfied. The more articles there are, the more difficulty is created for readers. So I would support this split if it gets consensus and resolves the issue. Titlte should probably be "Trials of...", though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont know how you could put the whole trial under Amanda Knox though, her boyfriend was tried as well so even if there is an article on Amanda Knox a short summary of the trail can be placed there with a link to the main article. There is no rush for this split though I am throwing the idea here as I have seen it pop up alot and support it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For sure the whole trial shouldn't be in an "Amanda Knox" article but here on this one, unless or till it's getting too big and a section fork would be warranted. Right now we're not at this point yet and I don't see one in the future unless of course the media keeps on bringing more due material to incorporate.
My point: We're fine at the moment as we still have plenty of space for more content in this article where all due weight about the trial should be. Guess we'll see in the next weeks while watching the media reporting if we need to fork off some content for space and also if a "Amanda Knox" bio is warranted. There is no rush though as there never is one on wiki.TMCk (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Add: This article already is mostly of Knox's and Sollecito's trial (Guede is barely mentioned in comparrison).TMCk (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I generally agree with TMCk. Breaking up the MoMK article and the Knox/Sollecito trial would be messy and basically gut this article. Breaking out a Knox article would have the dual effect of providing an article which our readers frankly expect to exist, plus give us the opportunity to move over (and possibly expand) the coverage of some ancillary trials and info on media coverage of Knox, allowing this article to stay more on its actual topic. Win-win!LedRush (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It was just a matter of time.TMCk (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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

On what grounds I don't know. Yes, the media focused on Knox in this murder case but especially since she was officially cleared of the charges we ought to be very careful not to attach her to the murder by writing a POV fork article about how "they wronged her" and neither one that places doubt on her innocents. Same for Sollecito BTW. "Most readers want to know the details of the crime"? We don't include every undue/fringe etc. content out there to WP. That's the presse's job if one might say so. At the moment there is not much to add and not much to remove from this article and certainly not much to be moved to any other potential article. It'll show in the near future if that changed. So till then: Just show patience.TMCk (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What's undue/fringe about taking the sections about the Knox/Sollecito trials and putting them in a new article? True, that article is probably going to be a permanent POV wasteland just like it is here at MoMK. But I'd like to see a quality, NPOV article at MoMK and that will never happen as long as the Knox POV war rages here. Brmull (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Acquitted subject to appeal, they remain part of the murder of Meredith Kercher until such time as they are deemed not guilty by law, which is not until after the final appeal. I agree that we should proceed as you say, but only after the decision of the final appeal. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

• Oppose, all these individuals came to public attention for one reason - the murder of MK and its direct aftermath/consequences. While some were acquitted and some convicted, and the trial is a large part of that topic, I think it better explains events in one article. If there is too much we need to say on the trial (or any other aspect really) for a single article then we might use summary style but I'm not seeing that right now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hardly, the arrest, retainment, trial, conviction, appeal and release took 4 YEARS of constant media attention. They have been acquitted and have been proven to have nothing to do with the murder. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's OWN story is one of wrongful imprisonment. Just because it started with the Murder of Meredith Kercher does not make it ABOUT the murder. It is actually its own story. There is an abundance of information for a seperate artical, actually, there is much more information about the wrongful trial and conviction then of the Murder itself. More importanly, it has nothing to do with the Murder itself.Issymo (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We aren't here to publicize "stories" or to support causes. There is a difference between how Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) covers a topic, and how news and media cover it. That it took 4 years is completely irrelevant - a matter that took 4 years can still easily be covered as one topic. An article is quite capable of covering a murder and its aftermath, and saying that some were acquitted and others were not. Please consider how other articles work and approach this one as an encyclopedia article. ""Person X was wrongly imprisoned and got acquitted" is not by itself a good reason to split an article. The "trial" section is a well balanced length. The article is a reasonable length for something of this profile. There isn't presently more that needs to go into it. And the trial has everything to do with the murder of course. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"And the trial has everything to do with the murder of course". No, it had nothing to do with the murder and everything to do with a wrongful conviction.Issymo (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is basic cause and effect. The "wrongful conviction" was a result of the trial. The trial was about the murder. The evidence at the trial and appeal was all evidence related to whether or not the defendants were the murderers. Most murder articles cover the events, the evidence, and the trial. They cover the trials resulting from the murder whether or not the defendants were in fact found innocent, because the trial is part of the event's encyclopedia coverage. If there is an excessive amount then summary style may be used for a sub-article, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is now looking to be tangential to the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and information on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito excessively outweigh information on Kercher, her circumstances, murder, murderer and the convicted murderer's conviction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were the accused in the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and the trial was a result of being the accused. Had there been no murder, there would have been no trial. All the facts discussed in the trial pertained to the case of the murder of MK. The fact that the accused were wrongly charged and have now been aquitted, does not make the case notable. There are hundreds of acquittals around the world - an encyclopedia needn't have articles for each of the trials. The fact that there was a trial by media is secondary. There have been many other cases with excessive media attention. What could be done, perhaps, is having a redirect to the relevant section in the article Murder of Meredith Kercher.--Tinpisa (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Late comment:The MoMK article is remarkably similar to the Caylee Anthony case (the accused were acquitted by the jury in both cases, both cases attracted a lot of media attention, and public sympathy). Just as splitting the Caylee Anthony article was not justified, so is it for the MoMK article. Tinpisa (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Just because this event caused another, doesn't mean they need to share the same article. It's got standalone sources now that separate it from the murder, even if the two events are heavily related. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Still oppose - most complex events have sources that discuss different aspects or one aspect but not others. The trial is completely connected to the murder. It wouldn't matter who was acquitted or how high profile the event, we're an encyclopedia - we don't artificially split apart events and their direct consequences, or put a crime in one article and the trial of its suspects in another article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What does being an encyclopedia have to do with artificially splitting apart events and their direct consequences? If sources treat them separately, we give them separate articles. And we do have sub-articles as well for a reason (e.g. Adolf Hitler and Sexuality of Adolf Hitler). – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sources treat them separately"? Every report I've seen about Knox has always been within the context of the murder case and vice-versa. The fact that the two events are so inextricably linked means it would make no sense for a source to mention one without also mentioning the other. There is nothing "separate" about Kercher, Guede, Knox, and Sollecito, they're all part of the same event and none of them rise to the level of notability of the trial and aftermath (which is why I think everything belongs under one banner, "The Trials of Knox"). In this case, a source choosing to focus on one aspect of this event does not make that aspect "separate" to the extent that a separate article is called for. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose at the moment. I agree that splitting would gut this article of content. I would suggest that once the final appeal is concluded and guilt or innocence is conclusively determined some of the content on this page dedicated to the trial and the aftermath could be transferred to a new trial article if they are ultimately acquitted. This article could then be reshaped to reflect a partially unsolved murder (if one accepts that there were multiple assailants in the murder). I don't think that this should happen before the final appeal is decided - if the acquittal is overturned on appeal they will ultimately in the eyes of the law be guilty of the crime and IMHO it would be appropriate to maintain the information in this article. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Comment: The article as it stands is unruly with info about the trials interspersed with discussion of forensics, etc. There is easily enough information about the investigation to fill its own article, just as there is enough about the trials to fill its own article. And while we don't have a crystal ball, unconditional acquittals in Italy are almost never overturned on final appeal. We are on fairly safe ground assuming this is the end of this case. Brmull (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I suppose we usually don't have separate articles for crimes and the resulting trials, but I think that this is a bit of an unusual case. There was a murder and a conviction in addition to a notable media circus that led to an (apparently) wrongful conviction of others. I think that there's a strong case that there are two notable subjects here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I think Amanda Knox should have her own article and that the users opposing that refuses to see the benifits of having a separate article for her. But if this is the closest we can get to that at the moment I support it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Trial of Knox/sollecito article but I Support a Separate Amanda Knox Article - Breaking up the MoMK article and the Knox/Sollecito trial would be messy and basically gut this article. Breaking out a Knox article would have the dual effect of providing an article which our readers frankly expect to exist, plus give us the opportunity to move over (and possibly expand) the coverage of some ancillary trials and info on media coverage of Knox, allowing this article to stay more on its actual topic. Win-win!LedRush (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot depends on what happens going forward with her. If it stays WP:BLP1E (for example, her life post-trial is some writings, book, interview, media stuff and basically all the direct aftermath of the case) then that can be summed up in a few sentences and added to a section called "aftermath". If it gets beyond WP:BLP1E and isn't just crystal ball speculation, I'd endorse a separate Amanda Knox article at that point because that would be outside the scope of the legal case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

She is giving press conferences and interviews, so BLP1E doesn't apply. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that it would apply anyway (4 years is an awfully long event...she is originally notable for the murder, but her other actions (like allegations of sexual harrassment in prison, press conferences, interviews, etc.) are now independently notably, and it takes intellectual gymnastics to count this an one event. There is a lot of notable, biographical information about her that simply doesn't belong in a MoMK article.LedRush (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea of BLP1E is people who come to notice for one cause. The mediaattention is still, if you are dispassionate, all basically "noted for one event". There was a murder. People got arrested charged, and jailed, there was debate and outcry over the crime and trial, they appealed, were acquitted, and are now being asked to present their views and feelings to the media. It's all "one thing" - one event and its natural followthrough - from an encyclopedia viewpoint. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your inclusion criteria is at odds with most of the BLPs in Category:Overturned convictions by country, and probably a lot of other categories. "people who come to notice for one cause" is a very loose rule, and is not one that we follow. It would require seriously responsible editorial judgment. Our editors are not qualified for that. This is why we follow an easier rule - "we cover what others have already covered." There is plenty of independent reputable secondary source coverage of Knox. I disagree that BLP1E should cover extended followthroughs. Instead, all of: (a) the murder, (b) the accusation, (c) the sensational prosecutor's case, (d) the trial and conviction and long incarceration, (f) the popular and vocal ensuing worldwide noise asserting a miscarriage of justice, (g) the appeal and overturn, are all separate events, and BLP1E does not apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E does exists as a guideline with to ensure to that low profile individuals aren't given too much attention because of their role in one event. (From the policy: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.") Knox is not a low profile individual and therefore the guideline (which is loose anyway) doesn't apply to her. She seeks out the media attention to help her case and therefore the privacy concern is no longer an actual concern. That it takes intellectual gymnastics to view this as a single event is merely the icing on top. BLP1E simply doesn't apply here.LedRush (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• Support  The prevailing view as of 3 October is that AK and RS were not present during the murder of Kercher, thus their story is not directly a part of the current Topic and the material here is currently too closely associated with Guede's story.  Also, the concerns of those that are seeing a need for a BLP for AK will be reduced by having an article title with the two words "AK".  It is certainly possible that AK will use this 15 minutes of fame to become individually notable, at which point we will also need to give her attention with a BLP, but right now she remains a "low-profile individual" and we don't want to encourage non-encyclopedic information such as her early life and her relatives.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify that this split does not depend on how "Amanda Knox" is redirected, the split is a function of the decision of 3 October, and will work well with or without a BLP for AK.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: A "Trials" article just needs to be created and it will inevitably be challenged for deletion, which on the basis of the above discussion will not get consensus. Then those editing MoMK can decide how much detail about the trials they want to leave here. Brmull (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I would rather this had waited till after the DRV, but it's a good idea nonetheless. The trial is a separate (although closely related) event to the initial murder and meets WP:EVENT by a long way. There's plenty of content to write a decent article, and it would provide a more logical redirect target for Knox and Sollecito. Reducing the amount of trial-related content in this article would be beneficial too, and in this way could be done without losing any information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzarian16 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the redirect of Raffaele Sollecito, there is no better target for that redirect than to create this new split.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: apparently we now have a boldly-created article Timeline of the Amanda Knox case, which may or may not affect any split of this page. I still think that a trial article is the way to go, and would suggest that maybe that article should be merged there. Others will no doubt disagree... Alzarian16 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no immediate need to separate the trials from MoMK no matter what the result of the DRV. They are so inextricably linked that to do so would only result in a redundant article. The amount of information that now exists about the trials certainly doesn't call for a split on that basis. However, I do see the need to rename MoMK to "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raphaele Sollecito" and possibly reworking the structure. The trials and aftermath are directly related to MK, but outweigh MK's notability, which indicates to me that both MK and Knox/Sollecito (as individuals) were merely somewhat minor aspects of the main event - the trials. Since I don't believe Knox -clearly a low-profile individual as of now - in any way deserves a standalone article yet, and the MoMK details would more appropriately belong in an article mainly about the trials etc., the title change seems the best action to take right now. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They would not be redundant. There is no reason to include any information about the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the MOMK artilce. A simple line that says they were originally convicted it was overturned with a link would be enough.Issymo (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Yes, hats off to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for making Meredith Kercher famous. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't their choice. What a moronic comment by you. They had 1427 days stolen from them. Do you honestly think that you would have heard of Meredith Kercher if Guede was arrested the next day and convicted? Stop fighting about guilt or innocence. It's over. It's time to report the truth. BruceFisher (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There we go again: Simply and plain forum opinions w/o any connection to WP policies, guidelines and standards applied. Party time or what?TMCk (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are now public figures whether anyone likes it or not. There should be a wikipedia entry for their (joint) trial and seperate pages from them as individuals. Dougbremner (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose both new article(s) and rename as neither Knox nor Sollecito are (yet?) notable for anything apart from this case. Also the victim's name in the title of such an article functions as a kind of tribute. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is extremely notable. I should be its own article.Issymo (talk)

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

These are two different topics. The trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should not be connected to the MOMK. They should be seperarte articles because they are seperate topics. The murder lead to the trial but the trial overwhelmes the MOMK information.Issymo (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you studied the case, you would realize that the trial existed directly and only because of the murder. The people tried were tried directly and only because they were the accused of the murder. Like OJ Simpson, just because someone is acquitted or the trial overshadows the murder, is not ever a good reason to split. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Ask what way best educates a student" Why ask that? Students are recommended to not use Wikipedia because it is not reliable. Can we stop the lectures now? We know how Wikipedia works. I am sorry that you feel it is "unfortunate" that we are here. BruceFisher (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that all users editing here know how Wikipedia works. Some have edited nothing except this article and have little or no other experience of how articles should look. Others show complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, wanting the "story" told and the like. A little (or very little) knowledge of editing norms and a strong personal viewpoint on the case is not going to lead to high quality neutral editorial judgment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Kercher does not have her own article; It's a redirect to this one, the murder case. Welcome to the real world.TMCk (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time for this article to step into the real world. Let me rephrase my question for you to make it a little more clear. Why is there an article detailing Meredith's murder? BruceFisher (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons: it meets our inclusion criteria (passes WP:NOT and is surely evidenced to meet our general notability guideline), and also as an event it surely meets the criterion of our guideline on event notability as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how clogged up Wikipedia would be if every murder in the world was given an article? We all know why Meredith Kercher's murder has an article. It is due to the controversy created by two people being wrongfully convicted. All of the hype was caused by the fantasy created around Amanda and Raffaele. When you come to that realization then Wikipedia may begin to accurately present the information regarding this case. Until then, no Wikipedia guideline will help. BruceFisher (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I might just know, by now. You're saying that routine news isn't and shouldn't be covered, and I agree. But nobody is likely to assert that this case had just "ordinary" or "routine" coverage, and your "reason" why there is an article is blue sky. Bruce, you really do need to read our guidelines more carefully before commenting, because even after months of involvement, you just now showed two big misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works:

1. Whether the charges were dropped or whether it was a "fantasy" created around two individuals (as you describe it) really wouldn't matter. We cover or not based on "enduring notability" of the topic, because we're a reference work on events, not a media source for tabloids. Even a completely fictional matter like a hoax can be covered if it gained enough attention. Even if an event is "fictional" the attention it gets is not. Of course the murder is far from fictional, and the fact these individuals were the accused for it is also non-fictional.
2. "Accurate presentation" of information is based on reliable sources. These can change, but we write what they show now, not what you think they "ought" to show or what you believe they will (or should) show in future.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know, Wikipedia guidelines!! I have heard it all before. Instead of using common sense you always shout "Wikipedia guidelines." Stop for a minute and look at this case as a real live person, not a Wikipedia robot. The murder of Meredith Kercher would have never been given an article on Wikipedia if the controversy had not been caused. This is a fact that you are ignoring. This fact fits in well with your "guidelines." Wikipedia is not properly structured to handle cases like this one and does a great disservice to the public by attempting to do so. The number one search for Amanda Knox has provided misinformation about this case for 4 years now because of "Wikipedia guidelines." What makes Wikipedia dangerous is the fact that it is often correct, leading readers to believe that all content is correct. Now is the time to do the right thing. Amanda Knox has been found innocent, Not "not guilty," INNOCENT. Stop lecturing on Wikipedia guidelines and look at this case as a real live person. Detailing this case properly fits right into your guidelines. Unfortunately, Amanda Knox is the story. Meredith Kercher was made famous because Amanda Knox was dragged into the nightmare. This is a fact! Wikipedia is nothing more than a media guide when it comes to cases like this. All sources are media related. The media offers you all of the necessary information now to get this right. Now, get it right. BruceFisher (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think with that viewpoint you need to be writing for more subjective media (blogs, newspapers, magazines). The fact is that there has been significant attention (indifferent as to its cause), and AK was central to that attention (whether or not guilty or innocent). Wikipedia is a reference work. Our agreed aim is to summarizes published information neutrally and dispassionately, and to a large extent treating it all as data. In borderline "grey" issues we do allow for human considerations - we remove borderline biographies on request, we remove unsubstantiated claims and unbalanced biographical material, we can decide that some information really isn't central to the topic. But this case isn't any of those. Here, neutrality trumps virtually everything. If you cannot accommodate that or find it hard to adapt, then you may find it easier to pick a different topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Wiki veteran that has lost the ability to think on his/her own. if you honestly believe that "neutrality trumps virtually everything" when it comes to this article then you are simply unable to see reality. Wikipedia has not allowed an article for Amanda Knox because you claim that she is only significant because of Meredith Kercher's murder. You have it backwards! Meredith Kercher's murder is only significant due to the controversy caused by Amanda Knox's wrongful conviction. So far you have been completely unable to communicate as a human being. You have shown that your capabilities are limited to repeatedly reciting Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a healthy way to create good content. BruceFisher (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

With just a little effort, I think you should be able to refactor your criticism of FT2’s values-weightings and logic without being personal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have come to realize that no matter how I respond the results are the same so I have decided to just be honest. Even if you disagree with my approach, any clear minded person can see that I am right. BruceFisher (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

But you aren't right. Perhaps you have been too close to the subject to see this objectively. You state "You have it backwards! Meredith Kercher's murder is only significant due to the controversy caused by Amanda Knox's wrongful conviction.". When one looks back at the creation of this article on Nov. 12, 2007, there is absolutely nothing which professes anything about the innocence of Knox & Sollecito...nothing to suggest that they were incorrectly charged. In fact, the early version contains her confession. Same goes for the earliest version of the Amanda Knox article just six days after the murder (here it is). You may have missed the fact that it was the sensational details released by the Italian authorities which made this case notable (Satanic sex orgy gone wrong). Wikipedia does consider sensational murder details to be notable...like Black Dahlia. I don't believe there was a notable pro-innocence movement for Knox until some time later (When?). So, no, the murder was given its own notability due to the lurid details; not the people accused of the crime. That is why we have policies and guidelines lest more of these logic-skewed "clear-minded persons" decide to cast them aside.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point completely. You said: "So, no, the murder was given its own notability due to the lurid details; not the people accused of the crime" The "lurid" details came from descriptions of those accused of the crime. If Guede had been arrested early on as he should have been, there would have been no "lurid" details. It would have been just one of the many other unfortunate murders that occurred in the world. A woman was murdered during a burglary. It was not a complicated crime. The "lurid" details were all a fantasy resulting in the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I am right. Open your eyes and look at reality. Stop looking back for a "guideline" to throw back at me and look at the facts. BruceFisher (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• Amanda Knox no has a separate article after a long discussion. Perhaps this suggestion is no longer useful?..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Very useful. I think there will probably need to be two articles, one about the Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and another bio article about Amanda Knox. I think the priority should be on the Trial article and if she writes a book or something the bio article could always be created later.Issymo (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Good, thanks.Issymo (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment How do we go about starting the new Trial artilce? One thing we could do is move over all the trial of AK and RS information from MOMK and just start from there. The new article will need new sections. Some suggestions: arrest, retainment, trial-conviction, appeal-acquittal, media impact. Issymo (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• • (Oppose any such creation). Such an article would be likely to be immediately replaced with a redirect back to here, as WP tries very hard to avoid internal content forks. The scope of an article on a murder case would normally include a review of investigations into the murder, and of trials that proceeded from those investigations -- because it makes a lot of sense to cover such tightly-related subjects all in the one place. (For example, consider the Murder of Rachel Nickell, which includes the trial and acquittal of Colin Stagg; or any other article you choose on a noteworthy murder). If a new article is not going to be dismissed immediately as just a content fork, you are going to need to make very clear what it is that the new article is going to contain that would differ from the treatment that would be expected at this article. Jheald (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Casey Anthony. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I support the creation of a "Trial(s)..." article in principle (I prefer this concept to that of a separate biography on Knox). However, now that Amanda Knox is being expanded from a redirect, how will it be possible both to have a trio of articles by the names Murder of Meredith Kercher, Trial(s) of (Amanda) Knox and (Raffaele) Sollecito and Amanda Knox and to deal with the problem of content-forking? The degree of overlap between these three subjects is such that it will be difficult to avoid duplicating information with the existence of more than one spinout article (I have yet to bring the recently created Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case into the equation). I too would like to register my dissatisfaction with some of the "arguments" that have been made in support of this proposal - Wikipedia does not select article titles on the basis of how best to tell someone's "story", nor does this debate have anything whatsoever to with whether someone's memory is "served" or "muddied". This is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. As for the notion that the murder itself is of little or no notability in comparison to that of the surrounding trials controversy, why is it that an article specifically titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher" has existed on Wikipedia ever since the murder occurred in late 2007 (i.e. before the controversy appeared)? Even without the notoriety that the affair has now, the article was kept at AfD in early 2008 (since then it has not been renamed). I think that FT2 hits the nail on the head with his "cause and effect" argument, and consider it far superior to pseudo-arguments that seem to have a lot to do with emotions and little to do with how Wikipedia actually works. SuperMarioMan 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The murder itself would have had no notability if two innocent people had not been wrongfully accused. If Guede was arrested early on as he should have been, the case would have received very little press. A woman was murdered during a burglary. This was not a complicated crime. If the authorities did not create the "sex game gone wrong" theory and arrest two innocent people to fit their fantasy, this would have fallen into the same category as all many other senseless murders that occur in the world. Does every murder on earth have its own Wikipedia article? BruceFisher (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really a question of "would have had no notability" - the article as titled "Murder of..." survived AfD (so, evidently, the subject was considered to pass the notability requirements) just two months after the murder occurred. To claim that the murder "would have had no notability" is to view the whole matter from the wrong end. Again, it's all about cause and effect. As to your closing question: obviously not, but when murder stories attract sufficient third-party coverage (which this one achieved in two months, even without the controversy that we know now), Wikipedia creates articles for them. SuperMarioMan 16:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again you fail to look at reality because some Wikipedia guideline can be slapped in so you can avoid looking at facts. Why did the article survive AfD? What made it notable? The facts are clear, the case was notable due to the salacious lies told by the authorities while wrongly accusing Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The murder is not notable, The story surrounding the murder is. When you say "sufficient third-party coverage" you are just reinforcing what I have said all along, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia when it comes to cases like this one, it is just a media guide. Just so you know, I like you so much that I included you in my new book. I have been nothing short of amazed that the number one viewed source online for one of the biggest cases in recent history(the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito), has been controlled by people with names like "SuperMarioMan." Astonishing really. Thankfully the facts are so clear at this point, the article has now become somewhat readable, too bad it is 4 years too late. BruceFisher (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that I can make this any clearer - the article was kept at AfD before the surrounding controversy emerged. (Did we know about all this controversy as far back as January 2008? I honestly don't remember that being the case.) This is the point that I am making. I am of the opinion that both the murder and the trials have become highly notable in very different ways, but due to the result of that original AfD, I disagree with the suggestion that the murder was somehow a non-event in relation to the trials. I'll add that I am nothing short of amazed by this childish obsession with my username. Still, I'm thrilled to hear that it'll be in a book! SuperMarioMan 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this conversation going on? We have a separate article for the trials, and another for Knox. These are done deals (the former is bad, in my opinion, the latter good). Let's move on. For the record, the murder is only notable beyond one news cycle because of Knox's role in it (which was speculated upon immediately) and SuperMarioMan's name is friggin' awesome.LedRush (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, everything is fine now so why bother with the past? I am amazed that some of the editors here are so hung up on Wikipedia policy that they have lost the ability to use common sense. Wikipedia misrepresented this case to the public for nearly 4 years, and now Wikipedia owes Amanda and Raffaele an apology. The problem is that too many Wikipedia superheros will never be able to realize what they have done. Why? Oh yeah, because the BS that was spewed out survived "AfD"!! All is well in the world because there is a Wikipedia guideline to slap on the mistake. Instead of rejoicing that the case is finally being reported correctly, why not use this as a learning experience? It is crystal clear that Wikipedia is the wrong format for cases like this. Learn from the mistake and make proper changes to prevent this from happening again. BruceFisher (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• 'Strong Support' :The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It’s time. The murder of MK and the prosecution and eventual acquittal of AK are two separate issues and deserve to be treated as such. Except for blatant obstructionism I can’t even imagine why this is considered debatable. Meredith deserves an accurate page dedicated to her untimely death. Amanda and Raffaele deserve a page dedicated to the facts of the flawed investigation and baseless witch trial that followed. The subject is not newsworthy because of Meredith Kercher; it’s newsworthy because it was a perversion of the law orchestrated by an out of control prosecutor. The Kercher family has said it themselves, Meredith has been forgotten. That’s to some degree true because in this story of an unjust crusade to punish an innocent young American woman, AK is the victim. Two crimes and two victims.. Two separate focuses.. require two pages . Tjholme (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• 'Strong Support' I agree with Tjholme. I see no reason why a "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" page cannot be a stand-alone page, which would leave the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" page free from all of the squabbling, which is not about Ms. Kercher at all, but about the investigation and prosecution and wrongful convictions. I think it's time to split the two subjects out to their own pages at this juncture. Jazz2006 (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's about wrongful acquittals. Just thought I'd say so. --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not found not guilty, they were declared INNOCENT in an Italian court. The court concluded that they had absolutely nothing to do with the murder. I like actual facts. Just thought I'd say so. BruceFisher (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is well known as the Amanda Knox case. This murder article should focus on what actually happened in the crime, the undisputed facts like the specific wounds the finding of the body, the time of death... and should act as a sub article for the Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article. The fact is, Amanda Knox is about a dozen times more notable than everyone else in this case combined. And all of them are notable. The current structure is like having an article on Timothy Geitner with a section on the President he served under. CD-Host (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges. There are many references (if not an entire section) to President Obama in Timothy Geithner, but if Obama was so integral to Geithner's story that he deserved a section devoted to him, as much as Knox's trials, etc. are integral to MoMK, then he'd get one. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Reverted. Our articles on murders are expected to cover the consequential investigations and trials that arise from them. A separate spin-out article is appropriate only if the material is not being covered in sufficient detail here. If such an article is necessary (and I am to say I am at the least dubious), then that is a separate matter from the Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case, which covers all the events that have evolved from the murder, and for which the balance of opinion on its talk page is that it should not be moved or re-purposed. Jheald (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, "Ok so the timeline of MoMK is a> she was murdered and b> Guede went to jail for it. Meanwhile the trial of Knox and Sollecito kicked off and virtually all of the timeline events relate to this. In other words, a timeline article for MoMK would certainly not be justified, and the trials timeline is sufficiently concise as to belong in a section of a trials article. We already have the MoMK & Knox articles and will soon have a trials article — do you really think we need four articles for a single event? Is it worth more editor time discussing it? Do you really think a dedicated timeline article would survive AfD?". -- samj _in^out 14:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's see whether we do have a trials article any time soon, and then whether it survives AfD as anything more than a content fork of this article; and then we'll know where we stand to review the timeline article. Meanwhile, as I wrote above, the balance of views on the timeline talk page is that it should not be redirected or repurposed. Jheald (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Overwhelming support for the creation of a separate "trials" article"? There isn't even a clear consensus for that, let alone overwhelming support for it. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Until the actual case is resolved concerning Knox, having this !vote is premature. As Mignini has said there will be an appeal then Knox & Sollecito aren't necessarily out of the woods yet.1 If we truly knew that things are over concerning K & S and the case then that would make things easier to decide.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The current vote is 20 Support and 8 Oppose. It has been up for 10 days now so everyone should have had time to vote. This is clearly in favor of a new article. How do we get and Admin or someone to give approval to start working on the new article? There has been enough time for everyone to weigh in. The majority is clearly in favor of a new article. Lets move on this now. Issymo (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately for WP, admins weigh opinions in relation to policy, not votes or popular demand. If 20 !votes go against policy or community consensus, for example, and 8 do not, guess which ones usually prevail? Shirtwaist ☎ 03:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the article was actually created some time ago...LedRush (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and we'll have to see if it's AfDed for being split off without a clear consensus and for being an unnecessary content fork. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What about this one [1]? Redirect to the new article? Merge with the new article? --Juanm (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose merge it with the trial article.Issymo (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox - the Untold Story

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

This article [2] seems to be a detailed version of the show (a transcript maybe?) I'm sure it won't please the guilters, but it provides a wealth of summary information for the article. However, it is obviously a pro-Knox piece, and like all of these articles it can't be treated like gospel.LedRush (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Mignini

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

You're correct, it is problematic. There are a few pertinent facts about Mignini available, but this section as it is now seems to have an agenda. pablo 15:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it because of BLP & coatracking concerns. The Doug Preston material and tangential accusations have no merit here. It is off-topic as well.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The article does need a summary-style section on Mignini, as he was central to everything that unfolded. Trying to explain the sequence of events without reference to that centrality would be close to impossible. Whatever is written, though, should be sourced to current high-quality sources, not tabloid articles from a few years ago. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Giuliano Mignini has been convicted

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

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

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

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

Your 2nd source sums it up best: "While Mr Mignini's conviction has no direct bearing on the Kercher case,..." and as such is coatracking and off the mark here. This article is on the Kercher case and not Mignini. It shouldn't be mentioned and there are three of us so far which have stated these concerns.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have Mr Mignini himself quoted as saying the criticism of him is part of a pattern stretching back to his investigation of the Monster of Florence (where Mignini was investigating the mystery death of chemist Francesco Narducci found drowned in a lake near Perugia in 1985 and who Mignini seems to believe Narducci ordered the serial killings. [3])

The Guardian, Monday 3 October 2011, Giuliano Mignini: Knox prosecutor who believes he is the conspiracy victim

"The criticisms will have come as no surprise to a man who has strongly believed for years that opponents were secretly plotting his downfall.

Just before the final summing up in the Knox appeal began, Mignini discussed his handling of an older case, the "Monster of Florence" serial killer, and his belief that his investigation of the 1985 death of a freemason, Francesco Narducci, that he linked to the case was mysteriously blocked.

"I have felt under attack ever since I investigated Narducci," he told the Guardian. :::"It all started there."

The 16-month sentence he received for abuse of office last year after he ordered unauthorised wiretaps during the Monster investigation was a trumped-up charge that fit the pattern of persecution, he has argued.

Mignini continues to work as he awaits his appeal, which starts on 22 November.

Mignini has claimed Douglas Preston, the US novelist who challenged Mignini's theories about the Monster of Florence, is masterminding a US press campaign against him over his handling of the Knox case. "It's all Preston," he said.

So it was unsurprising that Mignini should add a touch of conspiracy theory to his summing up in the Knox appeal, claiming that "our judicial system has been subjected to a systematic denigration by a well-organised operation of a journalistic and political nature"."

So to repeat. I'm not the one saying it is relevant Mignini is. Mignini is on record as claiming that the criticism of his conduct up until now including criticism of his conduct in the prosecution of Knox stems from his investigation into the death of Francesco Narducci. So it is highly relevant that although he thinks he did nothing wrong in the either the Knox or the Narducci cases he was convicted and sentenced to prison for what he did in the Narducci investigation. Overagainst (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually think it should be mentioned. But then again, it already is elsewhere in the article. I just don't think we need an entire section of the article devoted to bashing the guy on things that have no direct bearing on the case.LedRush (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mignini isn't a Wikipedia editor (AFAIK) so he isn't saying that any of this needs to be in this article. This subject matter is tangential to the article subject...let alone BLP concerns. I would also like to hear what other editors think based on policies.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly WP:UNDUE to grant this more than a brief mention. It would be better suited to an article about the Trials or an article about Mignini. If the extended content is included anywhere it would be important to note as a counterpoint that active prosecutors are often under investigation in Italy. Brmull (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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

BLP would apply to statements which are disputed or and/or not correctly sourced but it is has been reported in Europe and America that Mignini has been sentenced to prison for abuse of his powers.

Re. "This subject matter is tangential" Someone who comes to the Wikipedia article has a right to expect to find relevant information which was reported by the major newspapers covering the Murder of Meredith Kercher. Well the major newspapers covering the case have reported on Mignini being convicted and sentenced as part of their coverage of the case. These are not opinion pieces I am referencing but mainstream reporting of the case of the Murder of Meredith Kercher which is what the article is about. Information about Mark Fuhrman is relevant to the 'O. J. Simpson murder case' article and ought be included there as it is they are. The fact that undisputed information about Mignini was not an issue or aired in court during the trials does not make it irrelevant. In any other country it would have been impossible for someone facing the charges he was to be in charge of a prosecution because in the minds of most people it is highly relevant. That's why is has been reported by the papers covering the case: because people think it is very far from being tangential. Overagainst (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• (After edit-conflict) That kind of content about Mignini belongs in his own article which is linked from this one if a reader wants to know more about him. The editors who wish to add such content should do it over there where it is not non-related and undue weight.TMCk (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

TMCk, did we just agree again? This is getting frickin' crazy. I'm starting to get scared.LedRush (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It is getting to be that season. Next, you will be agreeing with Tarc & John.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to know that you think mentioning this convicted felon is undue weight. However, this isn't really relevant to whether reliable sources have discussed these issues concerning the man in connection to the case. Would you like to delete all the information about the innocent woman in the article next, given she had nothing to do with the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher'? Nevard (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that as the legal processes take up such a large part of the article we should mention as highly pertinent to an encyclopedic article, How about this

"At the same time as he was leading the prosecution of Knox, Mignini was himself being tried for abuse of his prosecutorial powers in another case, in Jan 2010 he was given a jail sentence which he is currently appealing against."

Not mentioning these pertinent and widely reported facts would be rather misleading as to the equivalence of the position of prosecutors in Italy. Brmull, while it is indeed relatively (relatively compared to other western countries) common for Italian officials even prosecuters to be under investigation it is not, as far as I know, common for prosecuters to be convicted and sentenced to prison time. And it has been widely reported in coverage of the case. Overagainst (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How did Mignini's conviction factor into the trial/appeal? Was that part of the decision? Opinion pieces from what may otherwise be reliable sources may indeed be irrelevant. They may be excluded at the consensus of editors...so yes, WP:UNDUE and a variety of other policies may trump the fact that sources are publishing opinion pieces. If it didn't factor into the final (so far) decision in the appeal then it is undue in this article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"How did Mignini's conviction factor into the trial/appeal?" Knox said at her trial that Mignini watched as officers slapped her around the head during the 14 hour interrogation. She was then charged with slandering a man who was about to be sentenced to prison time for abusing his power - by accusing him of abusing his powers. And she would have been back in the news being tried for slandering him convicted and given yet more time if it wasn't for the DNA review finding that the DNA evidence was worthless. Are you seriously suggesting that fact of the prosecutor being sentenced to prison for abuse of powers had no bearing on doubts about the conviction and the Italians' ordering of an independent review of the DNA evidence by a couple of Europe's leading forensic DNA experts (who happen to be Italians). I am puzzled why you think it is so irrelevant to the the subject of the article that it should not be mentioned. Telegraph Amanda Knox prosecutor convicted Daily Mail Amanda Knox's father welcomes jail term for Meredith Kercher murder prosecutor for 'corruption' Overagainst (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox did not say any such thing about Mignini at her trial. Now that the elation over the acquittal has settled down a bit it's time to start demanding that statements be verifiable again. Will you please source or retract that statement? Brmull (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"'Do you remember? Do you remember? And then boom! On the head,' Knox said, mimicking the slap in court" Raffaele Sollecito says the polce hit him. Oh, and Lumumba also says the police hit him . The article says "Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was in the room conducting the contested interrogation where the misconduct by officers was alleged.[71][72]"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Recent edits made in the last two days by one editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rudy Guede section

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

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

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

Hi, I can't see any reason to object to Nina Burleigh as a source. She's a reputable journalist, and her book is a good source of material. But I have no objection to your suggested addition. I agree that it's clearer. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim, her book is but one book and her Knox-as-feminist-martyr view is WP:FRINGE. I've read hundreds of books and articles and I can tell you this view is not representative. And the proposed text: "At his trial Guede said that Knox was not in the apartment at all on the night of the murder [WP:V - GUEDE DIDN'T SAY THAT], he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. At Guede's appeal he maintained his defense that a man had killed Meredith Kercher while he was out of the room but altered his story to claim Amanda Knox was in the apartment and had been arguing with Meridith, the court reduced his term of imprisonment to 16 years. [WP:SYNTH - FALSELY IMPLIES A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP]" Brmull (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At his trial Guede said that Knox was not in the apartment at all on the night of the murder [WP:V - GUEDE DIDN'T SAY THAT],". That is no more significant an objection than complaining that he spoke in Italian so we must use that too in quoting him. It does not have quotes round it so the fact he did not use those words exactly is neither here nor there . At Guedes trial he most certainly did say that Knox was not in the apartment at the time of the murder . His story was that he believed Meredith Kercher and himself were alone in the apartment as they were having a romantic liaison together in her bedroom, he went to the toilet and she was killed by a male intruder while he was out the bedroom. At his trial Guede never claimed to have seen Amanda Knox or heard the voice of Amanda Knox in the apartment or anywhere else at the time of the murder. He testified to seeing and hearing one man only. Guides said Knox was not there at his trial. Here is an except from a Daily Telegraph journalist Nick Squires's report on the conviction of Guede "Guede had always claimed that he was in the house because Miss Kercher, a Leeds University exchange student, had agreed to have sex with him after the pair had met at a Halloween party the night before. A post-mortem examination on Miss Kercher's body confirmed that there had been sexual contact between the two, but was inconclusive about whether it was consensual or not. He said he went to the bathroom because of stomach pains, then heard Miss Kercher scream. Guede stumbled out of the bathroom and confronted a lone intruder, a man who he claimed looked like Mr Sollecito".

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

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

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

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

That would seem to be making the case that they aren't reliable sources then. His sentence being reduced had nothing to do with his testimony that implicated Knox & Sollecito. It was reduced because he elected to have a fast track trial 1 and because he apologized to the Kercher family.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

He didn't apologise for murdering her, the apology related to his claim of not being responsible. Guede still denies he had anything to do with it. So he apologised for not saving her from the killer. I am Dracula and I will drink your blood Overagainst (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to my point. The court and not Mignini reduced his sentence because of his apology.ref Any sources which are implying that Guede's sentence was cut because, as SlimVirgin has suggested, he accused Knox will have made arguments for their exclusion from this article as being unreliable. This was a court decision and not a deal with the prosecution.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So in Italy you can maintain your innocence while 'apologising' for not saving the life of the young woman you have been found guilty of horribly murdering and sexually assualting and they will take 14 years off your sentence. Pull the other one. The prosecution can raise objections or decline to raise objections to the defence submissions. They obviously didn't actively press for the sentence to be upheld. Giude will still be in his thirties when released. Quite possibly he will get out sooner. Mignini would have dragged him back on another charge and had time added on, he doesn't release his grip. He was going to try and get a few extra years added on Amanda Knox's sentence, how old would she have been by the time she got out then? Some doctor drew blood (hope the needle was cleaner than the CSI's gloves) and they told her she had HIV, then they sold her cofidential medical infomation to the newspapers and trawled throught her diary for things to use in the media. They put her in a cell with an aggressive lesbian, probably hoping for another payday from the media. She'd have been dead in a few more years in that jail,Take a look at Knox today He destroyed 20 families with his delusions in the Narducci case, persecuted for imaginary ties to the Monster of Florence case. As Preston said "Mignini's malicious and completely unwarranted accusations ruined many lives and impoverished the defendants and their families," Now the Kerchers have been impoverished by the expenses involved in attending and being legally represented in never ending trials of their murdered daughter's friend . He'd drag Knox back in even now but he sits still for Guede to get a ludicrously lenient sentence? No. Overagainst (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Bearean, you are arguing that the court knocked 14 years off a murder sentence, because the convicted killer refused to accept his guilt and would only apologize for failing to summon help. Anyway, we have to stick to the sources, and they do make the link between Guede suddenly accusing Knox and shortly thereafter having his sentence almost halved. We can describe that using in-text attribution. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that from his 30 year sentence, it was reduced to 24 to put it in line with the sentences Knox & Sollecito had received and that it is customary from what the sources say that 1/3 is taken off for electing a fast track trial (that is 8 more years of it). The court made the description which included that the reduction in sentence was partially based on his apology. That is what the reliable sources say as they are quoting the court.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim it's well-known that Angel Face and Darkness Descending are anti-Knox books and the others are pro-Knox. If you want the latest, John Follain's Death in Perugia will be published next week. Based on previews it looks to be more on the anti-Knox side, so it might be a good contrast to Fatal Gift. Brmull (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Which of the books have you read yourself, so that I know which sources we have in common? So far, I've read Dempsey, Burleigh, and Latza Nadeau. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read Darkness Descending too. None of them straight through--too much repetition. Burleigh is the best written, and Nadeau is the most interesting in my opinion. I highly recommend the Massei Report and the Guede Cassation Report as well as the DNA report. The other sentencing reports are interesting but only available in Italian. Brmull (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Dempsey? I would recommend her book to anyone editing this article, because it's very clearly written and goes into a lot of detail without being excruciating. I've also read the Massei report, and I've glanced through the Guede one. I've added them to the References section so they're easier for readers to find. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I especially like how she paints the victim as a lush. And she think Schweppe's is an alcoholic drink. And she thinks Munich is the same thing as Monaco. Other than those types of errors she seems pretty reliable. Brmull (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

He threw his shoes away in Germany so it in not possible to prove there was glass wedged in his shoes. Issymo (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but he fact that there was a small piece of glass on the bedroom floor was discussed in secondary sources and deserves to be mentioned. Brmull (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a small piece of glass embedded in a print made by the sole of Rudy Guede's Nike 2 Outbreak tennis shoe on the floor of the bedroom. Meredith murder suspect Rudy Guede is an 'easy target' for accusations, say his lawyers. by Nick Pisa in Rome, 25 Oct 2008. "On Friday Sollecito's legal team said that a glass fragment found embedded in Guede's shoeprint at the scene proved that he had broken in. " He got a fragment of glass from the broken window wedged in the sole of his shoe as he came in, then the glass left the shoe to become embedded in the print made by the sole of his shoe as he walked inside the bedroom. Numerous shoe prints were found matching Guede's Nike shoe. Of course there was not a single shoe print matching any of the shoes which police had took from the houses of Knox and Sollecito. Guede claimed he did not break the upstairs window in the third bedroom of course but 5 days earlier, he had been caught afterhours in a Milan shool, with a laptop computer and mobile phone stolen from a law office burgled with a rock breaking through an upstairs window. Overagainst (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In Angel Face (p. 166) Nadeau says that no one was ever able to explain the glass on the floor, and speculates that it was from a liquor bottle. The important thing is to stay neutral or provide attribution, i.e. "Sollecito's legal team said...". I would favor simply saying that glass was found and the source was not established. Secondly, while it is technically true that none of shoe prints matched shoes found in the possession of Knox or Sollecito, a shoe print in Meredith's bedroom was found to be "compatible" with Knox. Brmull (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I started by providing a source which says quite clearly that the glass fragment in his footprint was evidence aganst him, and helped securre his conviction. I will not engage in debating a silly and very weakly sourced assertion. Overagainst (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Forensic evidence

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

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

I don't see that as evidence of wiping fingerprints. You are attempting original research with that and no source is necessary to refute your assertion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you can see it is not significant, as isn't relevant either "nor in her own bedroom" can be deleted. Overagainst (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be significant as it is just stating some of the facts in the case. But please don't attempt to draw conclusions by putting words in my mouth as I didn't say any such thing as you imply.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

DNA

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

Citation clutter

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

Guede leaving home

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

Sure it's in Burleigh p. 97 - He was living with his aunt in Lecco until late spring 2007. And on p. 96 Corporali says his family had no contact with Rudy for a year before his arrest in December 2007. (The Micheli sentencing report has more details including the fact that Guede's Perugia friends were helping him find work, and he was working part-time up until August 2007 when he became unemployed.) Brmull (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't find where Burleigh says that on p. 97. She says he moved out of his adoptive family's home, then went to live with his aunt in the winter and spring of 2007. That suggests he left the family home at the beginning of 2007. The comment that the family had no contact with him for a year before his arrest in Nov 2007 doesn't necessarily mean exactly 12 months. Dempsey also says it was 2007. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, here Caporali says Guede on lived with him for 7 or 8 months, which would have put it in 2005. I think he's wrong. I've read--I can't remember where--that Guede lived with the Caporalis from age 17 to age 19. Guede turned 20 in December 2006. Brmull (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Agree. There have been a number of high profile comments/articles criticising the acquittals and there was a near riot outside the courthouse. --FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not read many articles at all, (in Italian or British press) which state that the acquittal was a miscarriage of justice (and calling the chants outside the courthouse a riot is farcical)). However, the language seems too strong, even to me. Of course, we could just restore the consensus language that BRmull cut out for no reason. That was actually sourced and accurate and reflected the article at the time. However, with the dramatic change in the nature of the article, it may be time to rework that concept entirely.LedRush (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

agree with above. Dougbremner (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Too strong, amend. Actually just remove this clause per WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• I would like the "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice" language to remain, per BLP, because it reflects the views of the sources, and the lead as it was written did not explain how controversial these convictions were. Are there any high-quality reliable sources who continue to maintain that the Knox/Sollecito convictions were not a miscarriage of justice? If so, could someone post examples here? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confused about time here, Slim. Here, again, is the language we are discussing. "Their convictions were widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice, and were overturned on appeal in October 2011." See the word "were" in there? That tells us this is commenting on the past, so your question about "reliable sources who continue to maintain" something doesn't seem that relevant. Shall we stick to discussing the subject of the wording which forms the section heading of this heading? --John (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    • John, are you saying that you support the claim that "their convictions are widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice"?LedRush (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I can tweak the tense to make that clear. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Can you provide some high-quality sources who still maintain this was not a miscarriage of justice? I have looked but can't find any. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I do, but I'm not interested in having a discussion using your consensus-violating edits as a baseline. You can't add them without discussion. You know that. Why don't you show good faith? Brmull (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've always considered this to be a worryingly sourced statement, one of the classic lead stormbringers. I think it is likely accurate (given the wealth of info), but our current sources are barely relevant to support the claim... if anything they constitute material that views the convictions as miscarriages of justice, but we sorely lack a source that simply says "this is widely considered a miscarriage of justice" - or words to that effect. As it stands, it's kinda synth. I've been picking up various sources that decry the release - but many of them are tabloid conservative press and the language of them makes me immediately cautious - I don't think we can reliably follow that line of prose. But a source that clearly supports the statement we make in the lead would be stellar. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a boss, like a Bureaucrat or something? How can you be stopped from desecreting this article whith such an outrageously POV statement that even Errant thinks you've gone too far? No one else is allowed to throw their weight around like this. You've been asked to revert your change and seek consensus. Would you like to go to DRN or to mediation? Brmull (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would be necessary and it may be best to discuss here. SlimV is a reasonable person and has more of a reputation for improving articles than desecrating them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• Agree with John that the language is best removed in the interest of NPOV.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Brmll and Former IP have been posting anti-Knox material off-wiki. One comment from Brmull was somewhat abusive of her. Is it right that people who have become off-wiki activists against a living person (not a political figure or someone who wanted to become a public figure) should influence the content of this article? Looking through the talk archives I see it has made several editors uncomfortable, and I am beginning to feel the same way. I'm happy to work with anyone who has read the sources -- and Brmull I appreciate your attention to detail and desire for precision -- but I find it problematic that you want to sway the direction of the article and lead away from the views of the best sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim, stop making stuff up and play the ball not the editor. If it's not right for off-wiki activists to participate in the article, you have a lot of editors to topic ban (and I'm not among them). --FormerIP (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's what it takes, we should do it. There shouldn't be any activists editing this article, and particularly not when they have recently made abusive comments about Knox. The article has been problematic for a long time. There have been on- and off-wiki complaints, at least one mediation, and complaints to Jimbo. The article must reflect the views of the high-quality sources, whatever direction that goes in. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And for the most part, SV, I find the work you've done on the article brilliant. However in this case you seem to be staunchly ignoring the point I am making about our sourcing problem. I don't know why we are running down the road of "if it's not widely regarded as a miscarriage it must be widely regarded as a good conviction still, please source this". That's patently nonsense, and it is a bit tiring that it has been brought up as a counter point. My criticism still stands; the statement is not adequately sourced. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not in citation given

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

I've given notable sources above that say the opposite. We report the controversy. --FormerIP (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you post the citations here, please? I can't find them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

They're 7, 8 and 9, above. --FormerIP (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

7 doesn't say the opposite, it says that Knox probably knows what happened that night. 8 does indeed say the opposite (of course, Nancy Grace be crazy). 9 doesn't say the opposite, and actually has more support for the statement that the first conviction was a miscarriage of justice than the opposite. So we're left with only Nancy Grace giving an interview from the set of Dancy with the Stars. That doesn't mean we should include the statement as written, but we should discuss with all the facts on hand.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we can dance around with semantics if you like. The sources that don't say the opposite do say things that are clearly inconsistent with the phrase "miscarriage of justice", and one of them is from the actual judge in the case. We can't, particularly without any citation to back it up, report public reaction to the verdict in a way that is so clearly at odds with reality. --FormerIP (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as semantics, I see this as reading what the articles say. One says the innocent verdict is a miscarriage of justice, one says that the current verdict is definitely right and suggests that anti-american thinking may be responsible for any backlash, and one says that the verdict shouldn't be celebrated even though the innocent verdict was probably correct. Only one article supports your claim, and none of them would argue persuasively against the current language.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

This interpretation of the citation is not consistent with how most articles view this, or with how we viewed these types of statements on this very article. However, the statement does appear to strong to me. Rather than fighting over the sources, why aren't we looking for a compromise. Why not say "many media outlets and commentators have described the initial conviction/trial/whatever as a miscarriage of justice"? We can through in that Nancy Grace says Knox is guilty as sin (she be crazy, but she be notable, too).LedRush (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Still lacking something that ties it all together with the "many". This is the problem; there are masses of pro- and anti- Knox reports out there. In general the tabloid media are anti-Knox (the Mail all but said she was guilty as sin and blinded the courts :S) and the liberal media are more supporting of the overturning of the conviction. We lack anything to assess and balance this and specifically conclude where public opinion rests. It is this last that we are most lacking in this case. It's a problem that occurs a lot in situations like this where we try to record public opinion based on recent news media. I am honestly not able to find a source that summarises this. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• People.com and Nancy Grace are tabloid sources. I am requesting high-quality sources, particularly from writers who have studied this, who continue to maintain this was not a wrongful conviction. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I swear to fucking god no one is listening to me... --Errant ^(chat!) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly not, ErrantX.

So, it's okay to have "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice" on the basis of no sourcing, but to demonstrate that in actual fact contrary views are prominently held I need, what, a peer-reviewed criminology journal? However trashy Nancy Grace may or may not be, she is obviously a significant public commentator, as is Bill O'Reilly. And the views of the actual judge in the case probably ought to be relevant. --FormerIP (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, O'Reilly and the judge support the innocent claim, not the opposite. And there are tons of citations for "miscarriage of justice". But other than that...

But rather than focus on that, can we focus on compromise language, like what I've suggested above.LedRush (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What errant says is correct, I think. There are masses of pro and anti reliable sources out there. Maybe a settled view will become clearer in the longer term. What's also factually correct that the verdict was not an exoneration, it was an acquittal on the basis of reasonable doubt. Our article should not attempt to obscure that by appealing to a supposed consensus of public opinion that cannot be reliably sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Though I still contend that the "widely" or "many" language is often perfectly fine without finding those exact words in citations, and while I understand that the verdict was an exoneration based on the fact that she was found "innocent" and not "not guilty" (I understand both are options under Italian law), I think Errant and Former IP are probably right that we could let the dust settle more before making such claims. However, it's probably not a bad idea to stockpile sources now for the inevitable fight down the road.LedRush (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Though I still don't see a problem stating newspapers like (name them) and commentators like (name them) have said that the initial trial was a miscarriage of justice (or some other more generic term).LedRush (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

And yes; adding in some attributed views (probably in the media section mostly) would be good. We can source both sides I suspect. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Some further thoughts

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

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

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

Suggest:

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

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

I agree that the media section needs to be rewritten. Unfortunately it will take quite a bit of writing. I'm currently working on a laptop with a small screen and a sticky keyboard, so I feel as though I'm peering at the article through a keyhole. And every time I try to write "said," I get "sad," and "sticky" is "sicky," etc, so this is slowing things down my end somewhat. But if anyone else wants to have a go at that section, that would be very helpful.

I can't agree that the lead can't say this was seen as a miscarriage of justice until the media section is expanded. It was and is very clearly seen that way. I've asked several times for high-quality counter-examples, and so far all that has been offered are Nancy Grace, people.com, and Bill O'Reilly. I also can't agree that we have to find the words "miscarriage of justice"; I'm sure a source is out there, but it's just not necessary. If a thousand high-quality sources are writing about the convictions scornfully and angrily -- and no high-quality sources are supporting the convictions -- it would be obtuse of us not to be allowed to summarize that as "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice." WP articles shouldn't be quote farms. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to read: "Their convictions were overturned on appeal in October 2011, when a jury decided there had been a miscarriage of justice," and supplied a source (Telegraph) that says this directly; several other sources reported it using the same language. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Better, for sure :) Thanks. (Also that source handily mentions the counter views too in the next paragraph). If a thousand high-quality sources are writing about the convictions scornfully and angrily -- and no high-quality sources are supporting the convictions -- it would be obtuse of us not to be allowed to summarize that as "widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice."; I strongly disagree - because this is our judgement/research/view and thus is inappropriate. Agree on the quote farm, but that is not the only alternative. In the absence of a clear source which summarises the various views/opinions and how widespread they are we can quite happily say there were varied views, explain what they were and give a couple of relevant examples. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely false. The jury didnt declare any miscarriage of justice. The appellate jury simply declared Knox and Sollecito not guilty of the Murder of Meredith Kercher and other accusations. This is widespread in the media and this should go in the lead. The exact quote from the Telegraph is "A jury decided that Amanda Knox, who has spent almost four years in jail, was the victim of a miscarriage of justice following a chaotic Italian police investigation." This is maybe an explanation of the sentence by Nick Pisa, but clearly not what the court stated. The proposed and actual sentence is far more misleading than the previous one.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's sneaking journalistic comment into the lead as if it were fact, when it is plainly the opposite, which can be seen from the comments of the judge, that the prosecution was proper and that Knox and Sollecito may be guilty [7]. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lead as it was totally inappropriate as written. However, FormerIP's assertion is troubling, when the judge has ruled that Knox is innocent (not "not guilty") and publicly criticized the work of the lower court and prosecution. Of course, that doesn't mean he thinks the initial trial was a "miscarriage of justice", and I would be shocked if he ever made any such statement.LedRush (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been inappropriately threatened with a topic ban by the above admin for my alleged views outside of wikipedia. The admin in question has taken OWNership of the article and has made virtually all edits over the last few days. It should be noted that most of my fairly timid (although characterized as "activist") factual corrections were accepted. However, a typical edit that was rejected is here. In this case, a statement that was dubious and not sourced was restored with the edit note "i'll find a source later". This admin uses two pro-Knox books to source virtually everything. Many of the quotes about living persons are single-source from these books. Two other books which are less favorable to Knox no longer appear as sources at all. The admin refused to follow proper protocol and revert their controversial lede edit pending discussion. Finally, faced with overwhelming opposition, still refusing to follow proper protocol, substitute language was inserted without discussion. This has now been appropriately removed and I hope we can proceed with a civil discussion about what, if anything, should be said in the lede regarding media or public opinion of the case. In the case of public opinion, in the U.S., a Rasmussen poll after the verdict showed 44% agreed with the verdict and 11% disagreed, with the rest unsure. Brmull (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK lede edit, for anyone who wants to talk about this. My objections to the lede edit I reverted are 1)As the jury reversed the decision of a trial you must accept that they decided a miscarriage of justice had taken place. Being found innocent is quite different. That would cover an accquital at trial but this was an appeal. If an appeal reverses the verdict of a trial then the trial reached the wrong verdict. Hence when an appeal succeeds it is because the courts decide there has been a miscarriage of justice. Miscarriage of justice "A miscarriage of justice primarily is the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit".

2) "Also charged were Amanda Knox, an American exchange student and flatmate of Kercher, and Knox's then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student. Knox and Sollecito were convicted of sexual assault and murder in December 2009, and sentenced to 26 and 25 years respectively. Their convictions were overturned on appeal in October 2011, when a jury found them innocent of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher.[2]" Do you think that is a well worded couple of sentences . I don't. I think most people will notice that 'sexual assault and murder' is repeated and wonder why there is such clumsy wording of a Lede which is supposed to be a summary. I can't think of why anyone would want repetition in a summary. Overagainst (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Brmull, but nobody has ever heard the kind of things about a British or American defendent pre trial that they heard in this case. Overagainst (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean they didn't have a waver saying you are about to hear all about the bad character of the defendents in a trial because that's only because they are being tried in Italy and our protections don't apply. People (including me I am very ashamed to say) naturally assumed that only very bad people would be having so many bad things said about them. People don't realize that it was only because they are being tried in Italy where the prosecution can float all kinds of rumors with impunity.Overagainst (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note that Overagainst was just blocked for edit-warring to push "miscarriage of justice" into the lede against consensus.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

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

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

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

Concerning A, I know of no policy that requires that and I think removing them isn't the best course of action. It is useful to have lists of works to help those who are studying the subject. The documentaries aren't for sale on the market and so couldn't be construed as advertising. Concerning B, (if I understand correctly) it would be best to have them as references which would lead to them being in the bibliography. If they aren't used as refs, they could feasibly be pulled. This comes from the guideline WP:BOOKSPAM. Concerning C, it is in the guidelines that ISBN is preferable over other forms of book annotations that lead one to a particular market. (See WP:ELNO #15 & WP:ISBN). I agree with that guideline.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose you want to weigh in on the Amanda Knox article, where all of this information is being deleted as unsourced.LedRush (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Errant has stated on another article that the list of documentaries needs to be cited. Is there a policy which covers this? If not, do we delete the list or find cites?LedRush (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

We don't require ISBN numbers, though it's best not to include self-published books, unless they're getting media or academic attention for some reason. The documentaries are fine; not sure why anyone would want to remove them. As for Amazon sales info, I wouldn't see any need to add that to a citation; it would look like promotion. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to remove the documentaries per-se. But it would be nice to have a cite to support their existence, their broadcast on the claimed network, and that they actually do cover the material. I mean I am sure they did happen :) but you never know. Unlike a book where you can drop an ISBN and that identifies it, we don't have a global identifier for documentaries... --Errant ^(chat!) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Most of the documentaries were linked until removed here.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

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

Disagree. I think this is unnecessary as the way it is written is clear. The proposed edit would make it easy for a reader to infer that the jury relied on (or was influenced by) the inadmissible statement in determining guilt, which is not proven (or suggested) by the CNN source. It is not uncommon for evidence to be ruled inadmissible in a criminal trial but be relied on in a civil law suit as the rules of evidence are different. The only quirk (from a strictly Common law perspective) is that the same jury heard both trials. Although this is noteworthy (and is clearly stated) a reader should not infer bias in the jury just because a legal system is different than their own. There are safeguards built into Civilian legal systems that are not present in the Common law system. For example, judges sit with the lay members of the jury in deliberations and advise on legal aspects (for example, that they should disregard the inadmissible statements).

By the way, the section you reference also states, "... However, the court allowed the statement to be used in the concurrent civil, calunnia trial, in which Lumumba prevailed against Knox. Both trials had the same jury that had heard Knox's confession." This is factually incorrect as I have previously said calunnia is a criminal charge not the equivalent of tort. I think this error crept in when someone did a word replace of defamation with calunnia. In this paragraph defamation would be more appropriate as it was a civil suit. Her criminal conviction of calunnia was later upheld - but they are different legal matters. (Connolly15 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC))

I am confused, did they give her prison time for saying that she was hit while Mr, Mingini was in the room or not?

They did not, she receievd a 3 year prison sentence for falsely accusing Lumumba. You are confusing different legal issues that are quite separate.(Connolly15 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)).

Was that the only time added on? Is it common for those kind of charges to be brought against someone who incriminates. I'm not being smart I really want to know. Also the charges relating to slandering/defaming the police, how common are they in this kind of case and could they have resulted in more extra time added onOveragainst (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As part of the first trial she was also convicted of calunnia and sentenced (this is why her original sentence was 1 year longer than Sollecito's as he did not commit calunnia). At the appeal the conviction was confirmed and she was sentenced to 3 years. The crime of calunnia carries a maximum sentence in Italy of 6 years. As she had already served almost 4 years in prison, she was released immediately. It is a common element of both civilian and common law legal systems that if you go to the police and tell them that X did Y, and you have no reasonable reason to believe it is true, that you could be tried and convicted of a crime. In the U.S. this would be considered obstruction of justice, in the U.K. Perverting the course of justice. As to how often these types of charges are laid, I can't give any statistics, but the police / prosecutors don't look favourably on people accusing others without any reason as it is a waste of police resources (indeed, in this case Lamumba was arrested and investigated). I imagine how serious the accusation is (in this case murder) and whether the police act on the accusation or not (in this case they did) will have a bearing on whether a prosecution is brought. The charges relating to slandering the police (also calunnia, she effectively accused the police of committing a crime) are separate and did not form part of the first trial because she said them during that trial during her testimony. The police-related calunnia trial was to start 17 May 2011, but was delayed until 15 November 2011 ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13423074 ) because of her (at the time) ongoing appeal in the murder case. I haven't been keeping track of this second trial, but I highly doubt she will be attending now that she is in the U.S.. Her parents have also been charged with calunnia for repeating what Knox said about the police (again, effectively they accused the police of committing a crime - in this case it is even worse since they could not have witnessed it). This trial was due to start 4 July 2011, but I am not sure what happened in the case as I have not followed it closely, obviously it has been pushed back for some reason. Theoretically, Knox could be convicted and sentenced for more time in prison relating to this charge as well as her parents, though highly unlikely the U.S. would extradite them IMHO. Of course, effectively being on the run from the Italian prison system might keep them from visiting for a little while.(Connolly15 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Hmm, I knew that it is a very serious thing to be denounced in some legal systems and it's understandble that the penalty for false allegations is greater. But I don't think you could make an analogy with making false alegations in Britain. The allegation was made in an official statement. If a sworn statement had been legally adjudged to have been improperly obtained (Knox's was} in Britain you would never be charged with perjury for making the allegations it contained, it is most unlikely they would charge you with Perverting the course of justice either. It seems to me the Italian system lets prosecuters switch feet between criminal and civil proceedings.Overagainst (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The essesntial point is "Although this is noteworthy (and is clearly stated) a reader should not infer bias in the jury just because a legal system is different than their own." Riiight and that is why Amanda and Boyfriend were the first to be arrested but the last to be tried is it. Their legal system is different and I do not envy those who live under it

This is a biased perception of the legal system. Guede was convicted first because he opted for a different legal procedure, Knox and Sollecito also could have opted for this and did not, if they had there would not have been the difference in time. "Their legal system is different and I do not envy those who live under it" - this is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it but Wikipedia is not a proper venue for you to voice it to the public. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)).

Well I went over the top there, I have been thinking about this and no justice system is perfect. The Italian system works well as long as everyone does their job, that's true of all systems. Mignini is a honest man doing his job I think.Overagainst (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is something to think about: If the Rudy Guede was a lone burglar who managed to overpower and kill Meredith At his original trial (where he claimed to have broken off a consensual petting session to rush to the toilet and returned to find Meredith dead, tried to help her then panicked and fled) it was in his interest to say that he had touched MerEdith while she was naked thus explaining the DNA. The investigation was clearly targeting Knox and Sollecito. He could have so easily finessed his story to explain things but he got a deal to implicate Knox and Sollecito while helping his own case. He was a lone burglar/murderer. A lone burglar/murderer facing a murder conviction. Overagainst (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we step away from our own speculation please. It's not appropriate; and if this is informing your work here then you need to stop, because it is strongly discouraged to let your own views influence work. This has been a perennial problem with this article. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't explain very well admittedly but you're missing the point. Guede had the chance to bring off a variation on the old 'we had sex I split and some other guy killed her defence' All he had to say was that went to the toilet and went back into the bedroom to find her bleeding and stripped naked but not yet dead and she got blood all over him and he touched her pillow, disguarded clothing as he was trying to help. Then he split. The perfect defence. Maybe he was too stupid to think of it. Or maybe there is another reason. Deals are made, 'you run that defence and we will ask for the max'. Speculation seemed to favour the prosecution every time, There was speculation in the media during his trial that he was worried that Knox and S had a pact against him. Do you object to me talking about that rumor and speculation (which in fact is just another example of Mingini's extremely clever use of publicity against the defense) or is it only when the speculation goes against what you want to be true. He is the only one who has recieved a definitive conviction - in ITALIAN LAW, THAT IS THE SYSTEM. (Amanda won her second appeal while she was still presumed innocent). Under Italian law the verdict is suspended until the appeal fails them you get another one and if that is lost you are officially no longer presumed innocent. Amanda & S won the second one. Guede is the lone two time appeal loser, just as he was a lone burglar/murderer.Overagainst (talk)

Fo the first; no I don't give two craps about any "truth". But you are speculating and theorising, and you need to stop. Suggesting people are "too stupid" is very close to the bright line of WP:BLP problems. For the second; yes I agree, and the article reflects that this is how the system works. We worked long and hard to establish that in the prose. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"We worked long and hard to establish that in the prose" I found the way the text covered the appeals highly confusing. The text which covered Guede's sentence at trial and his appeal was extraordinarily convoluted. Work long and hard at making things clearer pleaseOveragainst (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, things have jiggled around a lot since the last "stable" content. SV is doing an excellent job at stiching the current material back together IMO --Errant ^(chat!) 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A concern

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

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

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

Extra concerns over the new "Knox becomes the target of investigation" content too - I'm going to remove some of the newly added uncited material. Firstly because as read it makes little sense (with no context), secondly because it starts soapboxing about her innocence and thirdly because it does appear to be uncited. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX, "soapboxing about her innocence" I made no such assertion, never say what I can't prove. That is why I do not claim to not be a secret billionaire who is also a babe magnet in spite of keeping his vast wealth secret. I know I'm not, but how could I prove it to you ?

OK Slim. I can't disagree with any of that, and should have listened to my inner voice which kept whispering that there is good reason for articles being written in a measured way. Point taken.Overagainst (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, and no worries. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

T

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too long; a heading needs to be short and factual. In addition the heading you propose is stressing a point a little too much. I quite like this new suggested heading - "prosecuted" is quite clear and factual, which broadly covers both those convicted and those no longer convicted. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

'No longer convicted' would be who ? Rudy Guede is the only one I am aware of that has been convicted. Italian law is confusing and I think there needs to be a brief explanation of the 'status of a conviction in Italy' and how the presumption of innocence extends until the second appeal before anything else. It's deceptive to talk about 'convictions' and trials unless people know that from the beginning. I think its common sense that should be done before the convictions are mentioned anyway. Then the section heading will be.

Persons no longer presumed innocent of the murder

And that will save repeating when we mention Giuliano Mignini, we have already explain the status he enjoys makes the word 'convicted' quite different to what is meant by that word outside Italy; he is presumed to be innocent until losing his second appeal.Overagainst (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You should probably take a some time (unfortunately it may take quite some time :S) to read over the talk page archives, because we discussed this at some length for several weeks. The issue we have is a dire lack of clear sourcing (especially sourcing we can tie to this actual event, to avoid synthesis/OR issues) - however at some point we did manage to clearly source a section that clarified the way Italian law worked (although our sources said three appeals, not two). I appreciate that might have got lost in the churn, so I agree working it back in is a good idea (I've only been skimming the article whilst SV deep cleans it). But to be fair you keep mentioning "convicted" and our sections says "prosecuted" - which have clear and distinctly different meanings. Although the formal guidelines are deliberately vague we aim for concise headings.

I get, and generally agree with, what you are aiming for. But no short concise header hits me.. I was going to suggest "Investigated Individuals", but the alliteration feels messy. I've been mulling this for a few days now and I think we should carry on switching this to a purely chronological article - that way the top header can simply be "investigation" and we can intro the three people there before moving on to the investigation and trials. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what your source meant was the trial was not what is meant by 'trial' in other countries. It is a three stage process. I knew that it was two appeals from casual reading of an article in my newspaper about the film that was made of the case (at a time when my personal opinions of the factual basis of the case were quite different, as they were up until a week ago). In the paper someone not sympathetic to Knox pointed out that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were still considered innocent and could sue the filmakers even though they were being held in prison. A chronological account would be very confusing as Mr. Lumamba Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were arrested first but Guede was tried first. Mr. Lumamba was the first to be cleared and Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were the last. The outcomes are the thing people want find out about. Overagainst (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said; you need to dig into the archives where we hashed this out in depth. In Italy you are convicted at the first trial, but not considered guilty until the final appeal is exhausted (this is all finicky terminology). I don't think that a per-trial account really works because a lot of the material crosses over or references each other. A chronology seems logical, and the standard way to approach it.. Knox/Sollecito & Lumamba arrested, Lumamba released & Guede arrested, Guede trial, K/S trial & Guede appeal, K/S appeal strikes me as the natural way to work through the event in sections. But if you have an alternative structure to propose, please feel free to detail it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A chronological account would be Ms. Knox, Mr. Lumamba and Mr. Sollecito arrested first. Mr. Lumamba released. Then Guede arrested and tried then his appeal/ Trials of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito it will be necessary to explain Italian law on the status of a convicted person who has not lost their second appeal. The appeal is not automatic. It suspends the verdict of the trial I think.

The chronological approach has its merits though - Jan 16:Knox, Sollecito Trial begins. Nov 18: Guede's appeal begins. Nov 21: Prosecution requests life for Knox, Sollecito, and nine years' solitary confinement for Knox. Dec 4: Knox sentenced to 26 years, Sollecito 25. Dec 22: Guede's sentence reduced to 16 years.

Talk Archive from way back when can't be a guide now -for what should be obvious reasons.Overagainst (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Confusing

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

• Cutting anything post-murder from the Guede & Knox sections and replacing them further down the article where they fit in the timeline
• Renaming that top level section (not sure on what the rename it to...)
• Figuring out a clear way to cover "murder - background - investigation - trials - aftermath" in a way that covers Guede in detail, but Knox/Sollecito in summary form (cutting off to the Trials.. article for more depth). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Errant, the way the article is written is so problematic that I'd appreciate it if nothing further is cut until we get some semblance of order and comprehensiveness. Then we can start moving material around to create a better structure. I think a structure will start to suggest itself as the article is written.

Also, Knox/Sollecito are clearly central to this, in terms of how it unfolded and became so notable, so removing too much about them will leave the article decimated. I have concerns about the new trial article turning into a POV fork. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just thinking out loud - the only major extant issue is the title. But the structure does need looking at ASAP too IMO because otherwise we'll just have to start from scratch again. I think we can deal with most of the K/S trial in summary here (we mostly do have just summary left right now) and cover specifics at greater length in the fork. But we should probably agree all this rather than wander aimlessly :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've moved some of the murder material higher, so the article doesn't begin with a list of bios. That means the reader will know the basic facts before getting more detail in the investigations and trials sections, which still need to be streamlined. We also need a good summary-style section containing the material recently moved to the new trials article, so long as it's not already elsewhere in the article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

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

The best sources apart from court documents are major newspapers' and news organizations' reports of the testimony at the trials by on the spot reporters EG ANN WISE PERUGIA, Italy Dec. 1, 2009 Lawyer Says Amanda Knox Prosecutor Switched Motives "testimony of a court interpreter who said that on Nov. 4 she saw Knox in a waiting room at the police station. The witness, said Dalla Vedova, said Knox was pale, and looked ill and the interpreter was worried about Knox who said that she had not eaten or drunk anything all day."

The police videos on YouTube, (the ones below do not show the victim). Is there any doubt about the authenticity of these?

Here is the bathroom. This is actual crime scene video of the bathroom at Via della Pergola #7 taken within hours of the murder of Meredith Kercher

The bra clasp recovery Amanda Knox - 47 Days is a Long Time - The Bra Clasp Discovery It shows the dirty glove and has a US forensic scientist talking about how the evidence is not really evidence at all. This was before it was found that documentation attesting to the procedures followed in the forensic DNA examination did not exist and that the testimony of the forensic scientist on DNA in the case was worthless on those and other grounds. Overagainst (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of the media

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

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

Reuters "With no contempt of court protections, the names and even photographs of suspects frequently appear in newspapers long before their trials while under the Italian system public prosecutors and judges often share offices -- meaning they can easily discuss cases before they come to court".

Not really like the Guildford Four newspaper reports from the 1970s. Anyone who lives in Britain has been exposed to publicity about the case that would be inconcievable for a British criminal trial and innaccuracy of the stories floated in the press is also inconcievable. The Guilford four got the publicity after their trial.Overagainst (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Yup.

ref "CHICAGO (CBS)[8].And what was suspicious about Knox's behavior? What gave her guilt away? Giobbi pointed to three incidents. But a warning first: in true movie fashion, Giobbi is going to start sounding like a character in a Fellini film, where imagination is the same as everyday reality. The first "suspicious" Knox incident took place at the crime scene. Giobbi told Knox that he was going to the house next door to talk with people there and ask if anyone witnessed anything unusual the night of the murder. Immediately after hearing that, Amanda Knox broke down, sobbing uncontrollably. Giobbi thought Knox's reaction was troubling because there are no houses next door to the crime scene. So why was she so emotional? Giobbi believes it was because Knox had a guilty conscious.(conscience?) The second incident happened when Giobbi asked Knox to follow him into the apartment below the crime scene. Both Giobbi and Knox had to put protective covers over their shoes before entering. Knox got hers on first, and then showed off that fact by performing a hula-hoop motion with her hands on her hips and bragging about how she quick she'd been. To Giobbi, Knox's inappropriate, girlish behavior wasn't a sign of immaturity, but rather a peek inside the craven heart of a killer. The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. It occurred when the police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza. This so-called "meeting" helped convince Giobbi the couple had acted together in the murder. "Knox and Sollecito never had a chance," says Paul Ciolino, a CBS News consultant and Chicago private investigator. Ciolino was at the 48 Hours meeting with Giobbi in 2008, and says, "If I had not been there, hearing this for myself, I would have never believed Giobbi would actually believe that eating a pizza was probable cause in a murder case." Now Knox and Sollecito share murder convictions, which are both being appealed." Overagainst (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

An elite police unit which had a record of success against some of Italy's' most notorious criminals was called in to deal with the investigation. Later, while Amanda Knox was still in prison, their commander Edgardo Giobbi, showed a rogues gallery of those the unit had put in prison including Bernardo Provenzano and Knox. She struck an anomalous note in the gallery,(she's been freed, the others have not hence she's anomalous) In CBS footage (link) Knox is surrounded by detectives, mainly middle aged men who tower over her. Police thought she was not upset enough and too sexy, (one reportedly remarked she "smelled of sex", so not anything she actually did) ref Amanda Knox: What's in a face?. However Giobbi, who had been lead investigator, gave an interview claiming that he had suspected within hours of the murder that Knox was involved because she bust out crying[9] of the way she swivelled her hips when putting on a pair of protective shoe covers at the house where the murder occurred. (article does not say he gave her them) Following the discovery of Kercher's body police found no forensic evidence tying Knox to the scene of the crime but the police came to take an particular interest in her and she became the focus of the investigation. However some writers have suggested that the unlikely (i am open to discussion however it is an unlikely scenario IMO) scenario of a slightly built 20 year old leading her boyfriend of seven days and a powerful (Guede played competitive basketball, he is strong) headstrong petty criminal(his crimes testify to that) in the torture, sexual assault and murder of her friend has similarities with previous unlikely, and now discredited, therories which Giuliano Mignini the prosecutor, had advanced earlier in his career. Mignini was about to face trial for abuse of office for the measures that he had resorted to against journalists who disagreed with his theories in an earlier case.refThe Monster of Florence By Douglas Preston, Mario Spezi Many Italian journalists feared to incur his displeasure.ref Tuesday 4 October 2011,Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher and the media A video showing Knox being comforted outside the cottage by her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, was thought highly significant, and police believed they were able to read Knox's guilt in her demeanor. Giobbi said: "We were able to establish guilt by closely observing the suspect's psychological and behavioural reaction during the interrogation. We don't need to rely on other kinds of investigation."Leslie, Ian. "Amanda Knox: What's in a face?", The Guardian, 8 October 2011.

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

You need more sources. Also the Youtube video appears to be a copyvio so we can't use it as a source. Particularly for the first few sentences... particularly for the anomolous claim (which jumps up at me as possible original research).. I'm not sure of the context or relevance of the text about the "rogues gallery" - when was it shown. To whom. Why? Who has commented on it. If this is a notable matter then it might be worth mentioning - but with the current context... not there. The reason I suggest it seems "soapboxy" is because it is making statements about how unlikely a suspect she was in a quite preachy way. Tough is not really a good way to describe them - feels WP:POV and flowery. Police thought she was not upset enough and too sexy; not sure about this, I can see what you are trying to say but based on the source it is pushing the point a little too strongly. I would suggest rephrasing it to mention her attitude, body language and actions. Following the discovery.. I'd shift this to be the second sentence and drop the bit about "following the discovery". i am open to discussion however it is an unlikely scenario IMO; just to note - if you ever find yourself writing content with this sort of thinking stop and rethink - because our own views are not relevant and we must take pains to discard them. However some writers have suggested that the unlikely; all of this really needs a source. I'd also suggest that if we have a section which deals with why people believed the accusations to be unfounded then it should be placed there for better context. powerful headstrong petty criminal; this needs a strong source to back it up, because it is quite POV & from the comments feels a lot like your own interpretation/OR. Mignini was about to face trial for abuse of office; this material is much discussed and we never really resolved where it should go. But definitely not here - hung off of a very tenuous thread.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss proposals :) I think the main issue I have with this section is that it "sets up" a picture of a poor American girl surrounded by burly policemen, sex-crazed slightly mad detectives and a prosecutor with the press under his thumb. The wording paints that picture in quite an impassioned way and the tone isn't really suitable for an encyclopaedia :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Long Way from Home April 12, CBS News 2 minutes 1 sec CBS are not going to complain about us citing them are they? Watching this does not make me feel 'flowery' AT ALL. I certainly agree with you that tough is not really a good way to describe them. "Police thought she was not upset enough and too sexy, one reportedly remarked she "smelled of sex",)your going to have to clik on the links for the ref OK ref Amanda Knox: What's in a face?.

March 18, 2010 Amanda Knox Italian Police Bombshell: We Knew She Was Guilty of Murder Without Physical Evidence "How did Italian police target Knox and Sollecito so quickly? One answer came three months after the arrests. In February 2008, 48 Hours met with Fabio (I think that's a typo the correct name is Edgardo) Giobbi, a department head at the Via Tuscolana offices of the forensic police. Giobbi told 48 Hours he was proud that Knox and Sollecito were arrested before fingerprints, blood, footprints, or DNA were analyzed by his office. Instead, Giobbi explained, the case was solved simply by observing Amanda Knox's behavior".

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

Meredith Kercher

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

Afraid not, no. Wikipedia style guidelines states we use surnames only after the first use of a name - see WP:SURNAME. It's probably worth taking a couple of hours to make a detailed read of the manual of style. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ms. is one of the English honorifics, titles are not forenames. Overagainst (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do read the linked manual of style entry; honorifics are not used either :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I trust my instincts that it will strike people as a bit 'off' to follow those guidlines in this case. May I suggest the use of both names at the begining of the paragraph dealing with her death. It is a long article and one repetition will hardly go amiss.Overagainst (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bilingual police interrogations

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

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

Coerced confessions: the discourse of bilingual police interrogations

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

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

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

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

Hi Overagainst. You're posting huge amounts of material here on the talk page, gathered from all around the web, plus your own thoughts and interpretations of it. Are you suggesting that sections such as this one should form part of the article? If not, what are these sections for?  pablo 09:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I will leave it to those with the stamina to go though your past contribitions to this talk page and decide which of us has been posting huge amounts of 'thoughts and interpretations' on this page. I have been here how long ? I have edited the actual page how many times? And you ? And your contributions to the discussion page are how many ? This is a discussion page and I am posting relevant newspaper reports of court testimony which, I would hope you understand, are the most relevant thing that one could post. References for discussion. Please do not attempt to inhibit discussion. Some are academic work on the subject such as could be cited on any article. It is quite absurd for you to complain (you are complaining ) about a series of news reports of testimony which I have abreviated in almost ever case . Links do not take up any space at all and when I give relevant excepts which are usually short this is an assistence to the reader. The things I have posted on are almost entirely central to the case: why Knox became a suspect, Knox's interview and the DNA evidence. I post short excepts from newspapers reporting court testimony and you call it a huge amount of opinion. An administrator is not on the article because of anything I have been doing.

I started a section on the interrogation and advanced the veiw that Anna Donnino was not what European law calls a proper interpreter."As you can see above she did not does not see or describe herself as an interpreter." is that an opinion or a fact?

"She is certainly not an accredited interpreter for the purposes of an interview" is that a opinion or a fact? Overagainst (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So - what, out of all that, do you suggest is needed to be added to the article? pablo 12:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for things to be added

1. Amanda Knox's height (and possibly weight) and the height of Guede - very important addition IMO.

2. An incident which took place at the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body, when Amanda Knox broke down, sobbing uncontrollably in front of the policeman, Giobbi.(source In February 2008, 48 Hours met with Giobbi)

3.It should be mentioned there are suggestions that early on the police had forensic evidence (which they kept quiet) that led them to look for someone of African ancestry.Overagainst (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

DNA evidence

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

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

The essential part of this is the following "or was at best the result of contamination". The report goes much much further than saying that the testimony of the forensic scientist as to the DNA analysis is flawed because there could have been contamination from dirty gloves. "Dr Vecchiotti insisted that her review had revealed serious failings in the original forensic evidence. She said investigators had 'evaluated a quantity of DNA that no one in the world would try to analyse.'" Overagainst (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lede

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

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

Overagainst, it's not really clear who you're talking to here. If your comment is aimed at one user in particular, you may prefer to leave a message directly on their talk page. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst, people have explained to you ad nauseum why your language is not suitable for the lede. Remember, the lede is a summary of the major points of the article. I actually think that your language may be suitable for the media section, if properly addressed per comments above. But your language is misleading (the jury said no such thing), puts undue weight on that specific term and is not properly cited. It simply cannot be allowed in the lede. I suggest that you focus your efforts to cleaning up the citations and language to put it in the media section (or elsewhere in the article).— Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs)

It was not my language as I pointed out in the edit summary. I DO NOT mess about with ledes. LedRush made a change to what I assumed was Slim's edit. I consider the edit left the lede in very poor shape for reasons given above. I reverted it because I think it was a very poor change to the lede and incredibly badly worded to boot. LedRush said 'now we discuss' in the edit summary I came to Talk but nobody turned up, they just reverted it. Now it's been reverted again. I am still waiting in Talk to talk about his change to the article. Thank you for pointing out about the number of reverting edits as I did not know that.

We have been discussing this a ton above. If you've missed the conversation, please see [10] LedRush (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian justice system

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

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

Done (Connolly15 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Prosecution and defence arguments

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

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

Request about removing/tagging material

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

Back off. I have just as much right to edit the page as anyone. How am I supposed to find a source refuting a statement that is wrong and shouldn't be there? If a statement says, "X did Y", and it's not in the source, am I supposed to find a source that says "X DIDN'T do Y"? As for tagging, it's appropriate to tag something that's dubious and not in the source. On the other hand reverting my edit with the edit note "it's in all the sources" is simply you blowing off the WP:V policy, and shouldn't be tolerated. Brmull (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You just removed that the apartment was on the ground floor, though that's already sourced in the article, so it took me only seconds to add a source after that particular sentence. You could have done that instead of me. So it would be helpful if you could first check for a source, and if you can't find one, then ask here on talk.

See WP:V: "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself."

Also, as I said earlier, I'm uncomfortable with some of the comments you've made off-wiki about Knox, and I wonder whether you have a COI in relation to this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It also took me about a second to find a source that refers to the boys' flat as the ground floor and the girls' flat as the second floor. I could find many more than you could find sources calling it the ground floor. My point is it's confusing and unnecessary to refer to the girls' flat as the ground floor, and so I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmull (talk • contribs)

Pot meet kettle. You've removed lots of material in this article without giving anyone time to object. Brmull (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And, as I'm saying now, I'm uncomfortable with your bull-in-a-china-shop approach and unwillingness ever to admit you are wrong despite your relative newness to this article. Brmull (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have a conflict of interest editing here, because it's clear from your many off-wiki posts that you're an anti-Knox activist, and some of the posts have amounted to personal attacks on her, rather than simply discussing the case. You should not be editing a Wikipedia article about a living person when you've crossed the line into activism against that person, especially not when it's someone who isn't standing for office where a degree of opposition would be understandable. I therefore think you should consider not editing this article again or any of the others about Knox.

I was also concerned about your comment that we could not use Nina Burleigh as a source because she's what you called a "radical feminist" (she isn't, so far as I know, but so what if she were?).

Personally, as I said before, I welcome your attention to detail, and I'd like to hear your suggestions on the talk page, but you've been removing a lot of material, and so I'm asking you now not to do that again. (Also, please don't post in the middle of my posts.) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this--YOU post your proposed edits in the talk section and the rest of us will look at them. You are rewriting the article wholesale. MoMK traditionally has made big changes only by consensus. My outside views are none of your business. Don't talk about them again. But since you brought it up, while we've been arguing, both Bruce Fisher and Doug Bremner have come and made edits to the article. Do you know who they are? Many people take an interest in MoMK because they have a strong desire to get the story right. I don't know what your deal is personally, but you are biased if you think Nina Burleigh set out to write a piece of straight journalism on the murder. Her book isn't even about the murder. It's about the "trials of Amanda Knox" at the hands of misogynist Italians. I've never said she isn't a RS for factual assertions. But the bulk of her book is colorful prose that is completely unverifiable, and frankly irrelevant to laying out the facts of the murder. I'm of the opinion that those assertions shouldn't be given undue weight. Meanwhile, critical facts aren't even mentioned in the article. I should be adding them rather than listening to more of your veiled threats. Brmull (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you are posting personal attacks against Amanda Knox off-wiki. WP isn't meant to be an extension of the various discussion groups that have grown up around this case. You seem to be deeply invested in claiming she is guilty of a crime she has been found not guilty of, and that is problematic in terms of our policy on living persons. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned User:Dougbremner. Here you'll see another editor warn him about conflict of interest, also because he is/was writing about the case off-wiki (from the opposite perspective). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• This really needs a source: "though the police reportedly continued to allow people to enter it". It suggests the police did something improper. Brmull (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I will add a source. I believe it's Dempsey; I just need to find the page number. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)