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) 13:47, 4 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Proposed text 2.2.3 Interrogation and arrest

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who took a detective-like role in cases,(Follain P79) arrived from his home after being alerted to the latest round of interviews. Another four hours of unrecorded interrogation took place. There was disagreement among the police about how to proceed, Marco Chiacchiera opposed arresting Knox before a thorough investigation. He advocated placing her, Lumumba, and Sollecito under close surveillance, and intercepting their phone calls. His subordinate, Napololeoni, argued for immediate arrests. At 5:45 am Knox signed a official statement in the presence of Mignini, this had some details changed from what she had previously said; for example, she now said she had met Lumumba at 9 pm, not 8:30. She also added that she had heard Kercher scream, though later in the same statement said she could not remember whether she had heard this. After signing she was taken to the cafeteria for espresso and food. Mignini drew up warrants giving the statements, texts and mobile phone activity as the grounds for arrest.(Dempsey 2010, pp. 149–150, Follain, P135-138)

Knox was arrested in the police offices at noon in the presence of Napoleoni and over thirty others who had worked on the case. John Follain writes when Amanda discovered what she was accused of, she burst out:'You used me, you stressed me out, you yelled at me and now you put me in prison accusing me of having killed my friend? But I could be dead now! And you tell me I'm a murderer?'.(Follain, P142)

Knox wrote a four-page note to the detectives before being taken to prison.(Follain P143) Overagainst (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No huge objections, but don't parts of this seem a little too detailed for the article? I don't think we should name Chiacchiera--or even Napoleoni--and I question whether this disagreement is important enough to mention. One thing I don't like: The phrase "detective-like" role is vague. It sounds like he's doing something different than any other prosecutor in Italy. Similarly, the fact that Knox was arrested in front of 30 others sounds ominous, but in fact is the norm. As I understand it, every officer has to sign the arrest order. Finally, Knox writing a four page note is covered elsewhere where it talks about how she retracted her earlier statements. Brmull (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mignini is not unique but he is one of the more hands on prosecutors as Follain mentions more than once. The info about mobile phone and computer activity goes into a lot more detail. This is all notable interesting stuff. It's arguable that witnesses' names should be omitted but not the senior investigators, they're in a different category not naming then would be taking things too far. It hardly reflects poorly on Chiacchiera that he was against the arrests. Overagainst (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think that "Mignini took a detective-like role" suggests that there there's something unusual or wrong with that, when there isn't. Similarly "Marco Chiacchiera, who was to leave the enquiry shortly afterwards, opposed arresting Knox" suggests that he was dismissed because he thought Mignini was being too aggressive. We don't know that. Likewise, "Knox was arrested ... in the presence of Napoleoni and over thirty others" suggests that this is somehow unusual or intended to humiliate her. We should just give the facts, not insinuate things. And we should try to limit the drama. There are other ways to keep the article interesting without quotes like "You used me!" Brmull (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Follain goes into detail and in more than one place about Mignini taking a detective like role. (Mignini's hobby is pistol shooting, (a Beretta and a SIG)

I didn't intend implying it wasn't Chiacchiera's decision to leave. Follain P164 "11th Dec: For the first time in her career Napololeoni found herself leading a major investigation when Chiacchiera, who had argued against arresting Amanda ,Patrick and Raphaele dropped out of it - officially because he was too busy with other cases."

We could add something to explain why they were all there like @Knox was arrested in the police offices at noon in the presence of Napoleoni and over thirty others who had worked on the case, as is customary in Italy."

The quote from Knox is there for the simple reason that's what she said on being charged with the MoMK. It is highly relevant in every way. It's reproduced just as Follain gives it, that's what she said. Overagainst (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Point one: Follain goes into lots of details since he wrote a book about the case but that doesn't mean that every detail he lays out is of importance for an encyclopedic article. Being a prosecutor is not just "playing a detective like role" but part of his job to do so as was pointed out by another editor before and practicing shooting at a shooting range (with a Beretta, the most common pistol in Italy which as far as I know is the standard weapon for police and the kind) also is nothing unusual for officers of law enforcement.
Point two: What is the importance of this and how does that improve the understanding of the subject? The latter is something you should always ask yourself before any attempt of adding content to the article.
Point three: Sure we could add something like that but then again, what would it add to the understanding of the subject of the article? I can't see any but confusion that would need even more undue explanation.
Point four: Should we fill the article with quotes from Knox or others after each and every statement of a fact, nursing a quote farm despite that wp rules tell us different? I guess not. Some responsive quotes might indeed be necessary but then again, we don't need and should add them extensively and whenever possible choose wording that simply is in no need of adding extensive and undue quotes.TMCk (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Some further thought: You seem to read Follain's book and trying to add every detail you yourself find interesting and important to the article. That's not how it works here and not the way you should approach it. Due weight comes usually from widely reported events while book sources in such cases can be used for simple, plain and important facts the mainstreem press comments on but negollects essentials in their reporting. You can't just add whatever you'll find in a book and see it as due weight just because it appeared there. By this measure we would need to add the whole book and every other book that was written about the case to the article with quotes, thousands of them. Can you see the problem in that? So please takle it slow (as there is no rush on wp), propose changes here at the talkpage and accept the outcome that might take not only days but weeks. There is no deadline on wp.TMCk (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles contain what Errant calls narrative as have pointed out.(One editor is interested in pistols, I mentioned it is Mignini's hobby in passing).

"Should we fill the article with quotes from Knox". Here's a quote from you "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)." In the above remark you seem to be refering to me as one of them or 'they.' That hardly suggests to me that you are a paragon of NPOV with the correct attitude to collaborative editing. Your contibutions do not indicate to me that you spend weeks discussing before changing the main page. you've made 594 edits o the MOMK Talk page and (200+ to the article 2.87% of the total) Moreover you did not raise any objections in the 2 days the proposal was on talk for discussion, a time when you were on WP It seems you prefer to pop up and revert rather than discuss - "So according to the source she had English speaking interrogators in the first interrogation and kept only for a short time without an official interpreter in the second interrogation where she then became a suspect. What sources are denying this account? TMCk (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)."

The point at issue was not whether whether the interrogators were bilingual, the Italian supreme court ruled her statement inadmissable because she had not been provided an official interpreter, I got that made clear in the article. You never did. Here is another quote "I concur with BereanHunter. We should stick to facts and keep opinions from people not related to the case to an absolute minimum if at all.TMCk (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)" You did not want Burleigh's work (which you call opinions) in the article at all. So a reputable journaist who followed the case full time for months and has written a book about it can't be cited. And this is the editor who is lecturing me about due weight ? Now you're saying that what Amanda Knox said when she when charged with the murder of Meredith Kercher as given in a reliable source can not be in the article either.Overagainst (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're misquoting me by leaving out parts and furthermore put words in my mouth I never had said. And then you're evasive in responding to my post while attacking me despite lack of reason, making a reasonable discussion with you impossible. Time for you to change your approach here.TMCk (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) But she has been cited...perhaps too much so. What numerous people have been telling you is that not everything about the case needs to be included in the article. You seem to be laboring under the false presumption that if something is cited that it can't be removed or that there must be a contravening cite that must serve as a rebuttal. This is not the case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to follow the link and decide who is being evasive 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)" Magnificent Clean-keeper and Berean Hunter concurred, they did not think Burleigh's 'opinions' (ie material from her book) should be in the article One of these 'opinions' was the crucial information which only Burleigh gives ""though Nina Burleigh writes that there was a window grate below". She can't be quoted to " keep opinions from people not related to the case to an absolute minimum" as Magnificent Clean-keeper put it. What Burleigh says about the window gate is an 'opinion' in the mind of a person not related to the case as far as Magnificent Clean-keeper and Berean Hunter are concerned. How could any source be cited or quoted on that basis. Is someone related to the case, like Amanda Knox, able to be cited or quoted? Yes and no. Yes when she is being quoted implicating herself "She also wrote she couldn't "fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered"," source old revision of article as edited by The Magnificent Clean-keeper on 7 October 2011. No, when it's what she said in front of 30 police when she was charged with the murder.Overagainst (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

See here.TMCk (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Altered version of proposed text

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini arrived from his home after being alerted to the latest round of interviews. Another four hours of unrecorded interrogation took place. At 5:45 am Knox signed an official statement which was taken by Mignini, this had some details changed from what she had previously said; for example, she now said she had met Lumumba at 9 pm, not 8:30. She also added that she had heard Kercher scream, though later in the same statement said she could not remember whether she had heard this. After signing she was taken to the cafeteria for espresso and food. Mignini drew up warrants giving the statements, texts and mobile phone activity as the grounds for arrest.(Dempsey 2010, pp. 149–150, Follain, P133-138) Knox was arrested at noon in the police offices. John Follain writes "when Amanda discovered what she was accused of, she burst out:'You used me, you stressed me out, you yelled at me and now you put me in prison accusing me of having killed my friend? But I could be dead now! And you tell me I'm a murderer?'." (Follain, P142)

Anyone, there is opposition to adding the above quote from Knox, if you think it belongs in the article please say so below.Overagainst (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections to above version then? Overagainst (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I do not think that you have quite got the hang of reporting facts in a neutral way. pablo 20:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I object. You wrote "if you think it belongs in the article please say so below." and then it appears that you would twist things to mean that silence is acceptance? No one supported this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Knox's words before she got arrested are not important in the way, say, RFK's dying words were. They're slightly embarrassing to her without being either incriminating or exonerating. Also it's a little weird to say (and I realize this was not your edit) that Knox's 5:45 statement differed from her previous statement without saying when that previous statement was. Apart from these issues, this version is acceptable to me. Brmull (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Pablo X, can you be specific as to problems with the phrasing or content of the proposed text of the revised verion.

Berean Hunter, I saw it could be taken that way afterwards, but it was aimed at getting more people involved rather than inhibiting debate. Could you give specific objections to the revised version?

Brmull,""Is everybody safe" weren't RFK's last words, though that is also quoted in the featured article. (Speaking while he had bullet fragments in his brain BTW).

The quote from Knox is notable, important, and relevant in it's own right. The quote is what she said on discovering what she was being charged with: the murder. An adverse inference can be drawn from silence at charge. Moreover, if she'd said nothing would that be important enough to mention? Quite possibly. Not mentioning what she said rather implies she'd said nothing. Hence the quote has multiple justifications for being in the article. I maybe should reassure (or warn) that don't think there are any more quotes from AK that should be included, but this one stands alone in it's notability.

Raffaele Sollecito was questioned from 10.40pm by Napoleoni along with two detectives from the SCO. Amanda Knox was questioned from 11 pm. but it is not clear when the interview stopped. Raffaele Sollecito allegedly (he denies it) stopped giving Knox an alibi around midnight, he was questioned until 3.30am. Amanda Knox was interviewed again from 1.45 by Rita Ficarra, Lorena Zugarini and Ivano Raffo with Anna Donnino present (Amanda Knox says Mignini was also present). It's not clear what time AK first put herself at the scene of the crime. When she first implicated herself it was not in a statement, she said things while being questioned as a witness - not a suspect. Hence what she said could not be used against her in court under Italian law. At 5.45am she made a statement to Mignini. That was the only statement she had made.Overagainst (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If no one stated that they were for this addition, why would you try to insist? I believe it is too nuanced and detailed and not necessarily accurate. At best, what you might have is something like "Knox would later state that her last words were..." which is not as meaningful as you might think.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, you asked "If no one stated that they were for this addition, why would you try to insist?""

There's no harm in calling for more people to contibute to discussion. I'm trying to address the objections and concerns which the handful of regular comenters have and when they make good points, as some frequently do, I am happy to see the edit modified accordingly. However, the prominence of a view among those who choose to contribute to this talk page may not be reflected out in the wider world. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Source:WP NPOV

Berean Hunter you said "At best, what you might have is something like "Knox would later state that her last words were..." which is not as meaningful as you might think." The source for the quote from Amanda Knox when she was charged with the murder of Meredith Kercher is not Amanda Knox. It's John Follain's book Death in Perugia , page 142 -143. Follain bases his book on the prosecution's files of the case. He was granted access to the prosecution's files. Given the source I don't think this quote is controversial.Overagainst (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing section breaks on this page

Sections should be titled and have new text below old , anything else makes it too difficult to follow. Old threads getting new text and anonymous section break make it difficult to locate discussions that have recently been reactivated. Active discussions should be kept on the bottom of a section, thereby easy to join for anyone dropping by. Not lost in the middle of a huge section with line breaks. I think discussions that make themselves difficult to join or even find can not claim consensus. Overagainst (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to fix it. Hopefully that works for everyone.TMCk (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to wrap up the discussions in the middle of threads, especially if they have been inactive for a few days, and start a new section at the end of page. These discussions are confusing enough as it is. Brmull (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text: Pre trial publicity

The sensational elements of the case led to Knox quickly becoming the subject of intense media attention in Italy, her appearance, including supposedly 'icy' blue eyes, was commented on. Knox was portrayed as a manipulative narcissist and called "a devil with an angel’s face".(Radar Magazine October /November 2008) The media's fascination with Knox(Amanda Knox: 'Foxy Knoxy' cries herself to sleep in jail) led to some articles about the case containing a picture of Knox but none of Kercher, upsetting an English woman who had been a friend of Kercher's and was later to give key testimony at the trial about Knox's relationship with Kercher and behaviour after the murder.(Follain p271-272).

In 14 Jan 2009, shortly before her trial began, Knox launched a legal action against the author of a best selling book about her, Kercher and their friends in Perugia. The book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by the author, witness transcripts not in the pubic domain and selected excepts from Knox's private journals which the author had somehow obtained. Her lawyers claimed that the book had "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers".([1])(March 22, 2010,ABC news)(Sky news) US legal commentator Kendal Coffrey observed that "In this country we would say, with this kind of media exposure, you could not get a fair trial".(NEWS INTERVIEW - HLN Prime News Aired December 4, 2009transcript)

Supporters in the US campaigned for the immediate release of Knox while publically proclaiming that Perugia's police and prosecutor had made a series of professional and ethical errors during their investigation. However, the Perugian lawyer representing Knox opposed the tactics. (Battle beyond the Kercher trial). Overagainst (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fist of all: Don't ever use the "friends of Amanda" group as a source. You absolutely should know by now that such blogs are not RS's on WP.
  Secondly: Could we stop adding blow by blow accounts of trivia, undue and not repeat things that are already covered in the article. We're not writing a book, we're supposed to write an encyclopedia and finally, the article should be written to the understanding of the case for the average reader, not for those who are obsessed with the subject and will get more detailed information elsewhere if that's what they're looking for. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TMCk. We seek to write things in summary style and not the narrative (as Errant has also said above). Overagainst, you may find that sometimes you say more when you talk less or in this case, write less. Let's try to keep to the germane facts and keep it clear, concise and to the point, please. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a link to a scan for those who wanted to verify the text, the source cite, as you know full well, is Radar magazine. Errant's ideas about 'narrative' are idiosyncratic. I've pointed to featured articles that by my way of thinking contain what (he calls) narrative Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Death of Ian Tomlinson and am still awaiting his rejoinder. I think if WP gives featured article status to those articles then we should take a leaf out their book, both have media sections Media coverage, Early reaction and analysis Overagainst (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes; those articles are good examples of how to correctly summarise a sequence of events without resorting to a full narration (as you seem to be heading toward). We do not need to cover every trivial action by those associated with the trial in detail, as Follain does. But I've given up trying to discuss or explain this to you. I have more interesting things to do than help clean up the mess here. Walls of lengthy text and proposals; full of excuses and avoidance, and then you simply stick the dubious and badly written text into the article anyway. The second sentence of the first paragraph of your proposed addition perfectly highlights the POV you are subtly and cleverly inserting into the article. YATPOV on this page :( --Errant ^(chat!) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Radar magazine is a reliable source, regardless of where a scan of the article can be found (though we cannot link to copyright violations on Wikipedia, in article space or talk space, so I am removing the link). "Friends of Amanda Knox" would also be a reliable source - for the views of that group, which are notable. Funny how the guilters are all "OMG, the PR campaign/Friends of Amanda Knox is a big money machine controlling all US media coverage" and at the same time trying to claim that they aren't significant enough to mention. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"you simply stick the dubious and badly written text into the article anyway" One or two of my most substantially sized edits and a number of smaller ones (eg glass in Guede's footprint) over the last few days have been completely deleted so I am not so clever. When I get things wrong like content or wording, I pay the price in wasted time, effort (a lot of both, I'm slow) and credibility. Sometimes those deletions have been right and after arguing I accept it. Sometimes I don't accept it but they stay deleted because I'm just one editor and get discouraged by the opposition.

Unless Wikipedia guidelines or policies that back up your assertions about 'narration' are cited I must assume they do not exist. I have cited 2 examples of featured articles which have quite a few quotations of what was said at certain vital points. You say "We do not need to cover every trivial action by those associated with the trial in detail". Quite so, but I was trying to insert a quote which was non trivial. Like this one- "As Kennedy lay wounded, Juan Romero cradled the senator's head and placed a rosary in his hand.[17] Kennedy asked Romero, "Is everybody safe, OK?" and Romero responded, "Yes, yes, everything is going to be OK". What AK said to the detectives when she was charged with the MoMK is at least as relevant to an article about the MoMK as that quote,. That's just giving a relevant quotation. If it had been left in it would be the only quote from Knox I had in the article, it was swiftly deleted. One very notable quote from Knox, what she said at this vital point and highly relevant to the article - and it got deleted.

Pre trial publicity is relevant to whether AK got a fair trial, there is a reference to both in the lede The sued book was serialized in Italy's leading newspaper. The second sentence you complain about contained of couple of examples of actual press coverage to give a flavor of what the press said. Of course they're POV, the Italian press' POV That's the point, the press had a POV. Those examples were not the worst ones by any means. I have a quote from a legal commentator supporting the view that the Italian press coverage meant AK and RS couldn't get a fair trial.Overagainst (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticizing the editing of others is likely to provoke a response ErrantX. "It is factual she made an admission, it is factual this led to her arrest. It is then definitely factual that she heavily disputes (and the next day partially retracted the statement) it and claims it was made under duress. We can record all of these things I think :) "Mignini felt that..." is a bit weak to me. --Errant (chat!) 15:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)" (Dictionary definitions of 'admission' 4. A confession, as of having committed a crime, 5. A voluntary acknowledgment of truth.) No, it was never factual that Knox made an admission. It was a fact that Knox was alleged to have said certain things by the police, but there is no proof she said it or that it was true. You have a systematically skewed view of what is factual. How can an undisputed quote from Knox of what she said when she was charged with murder be objected to on the grounds it's trivial? Under current circumstances that is an absurd objection.

In response to a question from Jimbo ErranX said-"I've been doing some research on this one - nothing is particularly clear and no source has a good overview of the whole of this issue as it stands the information about the contradiction is synth. We could probably state it as fact rather than "Knox later said..." but even then it is a bit problematic. Nowhere is it recorded Knox's specific claims about not having an interpretor present so it is not clear if she was claiming for the whole time. However; the matter will be in court in November under civil proceedings, so we will probably be able to iron it out then. --Errant (chat!) 11:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)" But it was already known that the Italian Supreme court had ruled Knox had not been given an interpreter.. See current refs 58 and 59 "Dempsey 2010, p. 141–142. Donadio, Rachel. "Details Only Add to Puzzle in Umbrian Murder Case", The New York Times, 29 September 2008".

"I have more interesting things to do than help clean up the mess here". Like you had better things to do between July 22nd 2011 and October 4th. Let's see if you actually do clean things up when it's really needed. You did a few edits and left the article on 4 October 2011. with the lede ending like this- "Reactions to the case have been polarized between the view that Knox and Sollecito were innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice[5][6] and the view that they were directly involved in Kercher's murder and convicted fairly.[7][8]."

ErrantX ,how could you see nothing wrong with that lede and leave it alone. How many millions of people saw that embarrassment to WP in the next few days? Overagainst (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you have fun with that? It must have taken some effort :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There aren't "millions" reading this page! Traffic stats show about 1,500 hits a day at the moment! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipeterproject, I meant main page from 4th Oct onward.

ErrantX, No it wasn't fun, I felt rather stupid. It took me three hours. More effort than you may think, I was 25lbs heavier on the 14th Oct.Overagainst (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Er...what?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And again just a wall of disorganized and senseless words not worth the effort to reply to as they don't reach the editor as proven before. Would be nice to get back on track here (again) with reasonable posts that help improve the article and getting away from what one single editor's thoughts are to reach that goal despite being told otherwise by basically every one else. TMCk (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Overagainst (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Altered version of proposed text

Knox became subject of intense media attention,(Radar Magazine October /November 2008) shortly before her trial she began legal action against the author of a best selling book about her which had been published in Italy. The book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by the author, witness transcripts not in the pubic domain and selected excepts from Knox's private journals which the author had somehow obtained. Her lawyers claimed that the book had "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers".([2])(March 22, 2010,ABC news)(Sky news) US legal commentator Kendal Coffrey observed that "In this country we would say, with this kind of media exposure, you could not get a fair trial".(NEWS INTERVIEW - HLN Prime News Aired December 4, 2009transcript)

In the US there was a pre-trial publicity campaign supporting Knox and attacking Italian investigators, but her lawyer thought it counter-productive. (22nd October 2008 Daily MailSupporters infuriate Italian prosecutors by suggesting trial moves to U.S), (Battle beyond the Kercher trial) (Follain P243-245). Overagainst (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections to above version? Overagainst (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Needs improvement. Knox became subject of intense media attention, shortly before her trial she began legal action.. the second part doesn't appear to follow on from the first. Her lawyers claimed & Kendal Coffrey observed; should be "said" (WP:CLAIM). In the US there was a pre-trial publicity campaign; who by? (this is important to note, because the sentence currently implies Knox or her family, etc, were involved - against the advice of their lawyers). but her lawyer thought it counter-productive; this is a bit confusing tacked on. I'd split it out into a second sentence & note why (if possible). The subject of the first few sentences switches rapidly between Knox and "the author" which confuses some uses of "her". It probably needs reworking to make one or the other the focus (can we name the author?). Both the Sky source and ABC News note the same portion of the book as fictional - and mention no others. Do we have a source to support that more was invented, as the sentence implies? --Errant ^(chat!) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That all depends on how people are viewing it. When we last visited this topic, folks were trying to see whether it should be mentioned here at all or placed in the Amanda Knox article. It appears that this section of that article begins down that road.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is this text supposed to go? Will similar text in the "Media" and "Related Proceedings" sections be removed? As Errant said the prose needs to be cleaned up. I also think the quote by Kendall Coffey is confusing. Coffey is not just a legal commentator; he's an expert on using the media to influence juries. When he says "in this country we would say ... you could not get a fair trial", does he mean Americans think Knox couldn't have gotten a fair trial in America because of negative media coverage? Dubious. Brmull (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX, very well then "Knox became..." into two sentences, 'shortly before...' becomes the beginning of the second sentence.

All right, "Her lawyers claimed..." becomes Her lawyers said..."

Using 'said' repeatedly should be avoided where possible. The use of 'said' is by no means mandated by WP style guidance. The link says "Extra care is needed" when using 'observed' and that it should be avoided when what it suggests about a speaker is unverifiable. Not that it is impermissible. In this case it's appropriate to a recognized legal commentator whose views are being quoted about pre trial publicity. Kendall Coffey's qualifications to make observations on legal matters are verifiable. However 'according to' can be used in the sentence. alternatively 'observed' can be altered to 'remarked'. Anyway, he's not some just someone who 'said' things, he is qualified to comment on these matters.

The pre trial publicity campaign supporting Knox was by her supporters. It's not necessary to go into detail about who they were or what Knox's family or parents' involvement was. There is abundant support in the sources provided for a straightforward reading of the text (and the implications you purport to find in the text). As is already in the article, Knox's parents hired a PR adviser. Also they gave an interview in which they attacked the investigators (Follain P243) by recounting what Amanda Knox had told them about being struck during her interrogation. The source says they went on a PR offensive against the investigators, (Follain 243) The proposed text says that Knox's lawyer thought it was a bad idea. He did.(Follain p.244-245 and 182-183)

I see nothing to cause confusion in the conjoined sentence ending "but her lawyer thought it counter-productive."

Some editors object to names being used, Fiorenza Sarzanini wrote the book. Reworked: "Shortly before her trial Knox began legal action against Fiorenza Sarzanini, the author of a best selling book about her which had been published in Italy. The book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by Sarzanini, witness transcripts not in the pubic domain and selected excepts from Knox's private journals which Sarzanini had somehow obtained. Lawyers for Knox said that the book had "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers".

"Both the Sky source and ABC News note the same portion of the book as fictional - and mention no others. Do we have a source to support that more was invented, as the sentence implies? "The sources I gave for the text (link Small Victory For Amanda Knox) make it clear the book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by the author.-

One of the given sources (ABC) says:"Many of the passages in Sarzanini's book quote personal writings by Knox [...] Based on the documents she obtained, Sarzanini creatively reconstructed scenarios and thoughts she imagined her characters had."

Proposed text says:"The book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by the author, witness transcripts not in the pubic domain and selected excepts from Knox's private journals which the author had somehow obtained."

I don't understand how that can be interpreted to imply that more than a portion of the book was not factual when the proposed text said included accounts of events as imagined or invented. The relevance of quantifying how much of the book is invented or imagined escapes me. Overagainst (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Berean–Hunter, this is not about public image it's about pre trial publicity and relevant to Amanda Knox's trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Brmull.Text is about pre trial publicity, it would fit in before 2.2.6 Prosecution section. Read the linked transcript. Kendall Coffey was talking about the media free for all in Italy around Amanda Knox when he said "In this country we would say, with this kind of media exposure, you could not get a fair trial"Overagainst (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Her public image directly came/comes from the pre-trial publicity that she received. The section that I linked to is directly pertinent. I have been undecided on this one but I'm starting to think that LedRush has the best idea in that the material on the libel suit sideshow may fit in the AK article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter you said "No. Her public image directly came/comes from the pre-trial publicity that she received."

Knox's public image in general is not what is being covered here. The Pre trial publicity in Italy about Amanda Knox is for the good reason that it relates to Knox's trial for the MoMK and thus to the MoMK page. I am not aware of a WP policy or guidline that suggests the pertinence of material to the AK article is a justification for excluding that material from the MoMK article. Overagainst (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)