Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Restored omission: Police released Guede days before murder

11-Feb-10: The article has been re-expanded to note that Rudy Guede had been caught with a large stolen knife (16-inch, 40-cm) inside a closed Milan school on 27-Oct-07 (5 days before the murder) with a laptop PC reported stolen 14-Oct-07 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock breaking an upstairs window. The Perugia police were notified Guede had the laptop, plus a cellphone also stolen from the Perugia office with the broken window. However, Guede was released by the Milan police, and not transferred to the Perugia police, as testified by the two Perugia solicitors (attorneys) at the Knox/Sollecito trial hearing on 26-June-2009 and by the school director 27 June. Hence, the reports of Guede holding a woman's watch, a hammer, a stolen knife and stolen property from a prior upstairs-window burglary could be confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, and the 2 solicitors (lawyers Palazzoli and Paolo Brocchi) whose PC, printer and mobile phone were stolen on 14-Oct-07. I regret these major events had been omitted from the article, even until late December, while the details had been in major news reports in June 2009. The details are not rumors, but rather, confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, Judge Micheli, and court testimony of 3 professionals. See source "Knox Trial Witness Points Finger at Guede" by Ann Wise (Rome) 26Jun09, web: ABCNews. -Wikid77 23:49, 11 February 2010

It is vandalism to alter the text while it is under review on an official notice board; and discussions on crucifix.

I chose, as a courtesy — and to avoid the usual claim of censorship —, not to ask Zlykinskyja to remove the text she added, pending the review on the official notice board (after all, there is no reason her version of the text should remain, in lieu of mine, until this dispute has been resolved...), but nonetheless, I strongly object to this statement "copies of the diary and notebooks were somehow acquired by the journalist from the government": it is unsourced, it is biased, it is defamatory and it is wrong. Please, do remove the "from the government" part. I do not want to do it, because I fear an edit war might ensue, but I appeal to Zlykinskyja's good will to do that. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who believes this is vandalism is welcome to try to find such a statement in WP:VANDAL. They will not be successful. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to make the encyclopedia worse. Edits made as part of a content dispute are not vandalism, because each party is trying to insert what they believe is correct. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion! Anyway, I will not remove the text, hoping Zlykinskyja will oblige me... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, I'd very much like to hear your opinion on this dispute on the NPOV notice board, if you wished to comment on it... ^___^ 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it is too difficult to conduct a review at the NPOV board if the text is altered. What is the point of including the exact text in a chart form, and then altering the text in the article, when I have asked that a review be done of the text in the chart WITHIN the context of the article. So if now editors start altering the text in the article, it no longer matches what is in the chart and the whole process becomes confusing, time consuming, and any result possibly moot. If time and effort is going to be spent doing a review of the text in the chart--and WITHIN the context of the article---, then having two different texts make no sense at all. Also, there is nothing defamatory about the information at all. The government seized the materials, and then the press got the materials. Saying that does not constitute defamation. So there is no emergency in needing to delete the information while a textual review is underway. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, apparently she will not oblige me...

By the way, there is no proof this material was leaked; a recent, unrelated episode was heavily reported, in which two journalists (of two different newspapers) sneaked into the office of a prosecutor and stole a copy of a wiretapping transcript; they're now about to be charged. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And even if they were leaked by someone, it is, at least, incorrect to write that they were leaked by the Government: that would make it somewhat legal (or, at least, an action political in nature, which risks confirming the claims of anti-americanism). They could have been leaked - if they were! - by a crooked cop, who committed a crime and who would be incriminated, if he were to be caught...

Moreover, in the past, defence lawyers have been known to leak material to the press - for instance, wiretapping transcripts regarding the private life of a politician, episodes that were considered morally reprehensible, albeit not unlawful -, to grant a change of venue or to smear the prosecutor and the police, making them appear fraudulent... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The defense would never have leaked such highly damaging and profoundly private information to the press. That would be crazy. The government--either the police or the prosecutor or BOTH-- had possession of the seized materials. The materials were highly damaging. Then it all ends up in the media and in a book. This took place in the context of many other highly damaging leaks from the government. Judge Heavey of Washington has stated that Amanda was "demonized" and that the Italian government did that to her by many times leaking FALSE information and other damaging information prior to trial. That is what it looks like to many people. There was indeed defamation, but it was by the Italian government against Amanda, in the eyes of many. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And so you're here to try and rectify it, is that correct? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not a fair accusation. I am here to write a story that is non-defamatory against Amanda and Raffaele--and thus complies with BLP-- and is NPOV. But the fact that they have been villified in the media is not a minor issue. It is a very major issue mentioned countless times by public officials, public figures, U.S. media, family and supporters, and so it is fair to include that issue in the story. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that, in doing this — I mean to try and write a NPOV article, which is what we are all trying to do, I think —, we may risk defaming the prosecution or the members of the Court of Assize, if we're not careful; this is a good example of what I mean: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was not in the article, it was on a Talk page, so it is irrelevant to the content of the article. In terms of the documentary, almost the entire hour of The Learning Channel documentary on "The Trials of Amanda Knox" shown nationally on Sunday night focused on how Amanda was convicted in the court of public opinion by the villification of her due to government leaks and media sensationalism. The court and Mignini are not immune to criticism over the way this has been handled. If the US media is now making claims that the Italians mishandled this, and public officials are making those claims as well, then that is legitimate information for the story. In America, the US media is free to call it as they see it. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but that shows what you think of Mignini... In Italy, you can criticize, even harshly, a verdict (that's why our Judges publish written motivations: to allow for public review of their decisions), but not the Magistrates themselves as persons (attacks such as "mentally unstable" or whatever). I saw the documentary and I deemed it extremely POV. That's the prerogative of TLC, of course, but, still, I hope this article will be far more balanced. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you watch this on The Learning Channel? Is that shown in Italy? There are seven versions of the documentary so what was shown on The Learning Channel Sunday night and what was shown in Italy might not be the same version. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

TLC is not shown in Italy, as far as I know, but I managed to watch a copy of the documentary — I procured it in a not so legal way... :o) —. I read that Curt Knox complained about there being more than one version of the documentary, so I can't be sure that we watched the very same thing... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Where was the camera placed that recorded the courtroom scenes? Was that in a balcony or was the camera up on a pole or affixed to the ceiling? I ask because the camera position made the courtroom scenes look extremely intimidating. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was on a pole, but I am not sure; after all, only very few scenes of the courtroom were shown — they preferred closeups of Amanda and her interpreter —. Anyway, I don't think that it could be intimidating, but it's my opinion. The courtroom was crowded, crammed with journalists because the trial was watched closely and journalists from at least three countries had gathered there... I also saw that you thought that the crucifix was intimidating. I don't know if it is - and it seems to me, but I could be wrong, that it is present in U.S. courtrooms too -, to me it wouldn't be. However, many people would like to have it removed — I am one of them —. It is a very interesting dispute, that has crossed our borders, but I fear this is not the place to discuss it... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no crucifixes in U.S. courtrooms. The U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State. And if you try to see things from a defendants' point of view, having any religious articles in a courtroom where you would prefer the surroundings to be as neutral as possible, could be interpreted as intimidating by a defendant. I don't know what Zlykinskyja's original post about it was, but she has a point about the courtroom proceedings being intimidating. I would imagine, any courtroom is intimidating to any defendant.Malke2010 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In Italy, that's true as well: the Church and the State are two different entities (art. 7 of the Italian Constitution). At the same time, though, under an extremely old executive order (dating back to Mussolini's times), in schools, in courtrooms and in every public office there must be an image of the President of the Republic and a crucifix. Since it is not a statute, the Constitutional Court cannot rule that this is unconstitutional. In Courtrooms, there must also be an inscription which reads "la Legge è uguale per tutti" (Law is the same for everyone) and "la Giustizia è amministrata in nome del popolo" (Justice is administered in the name of the people).

It's tradition, just like robes, sashes and "your honour"... It has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of a trial... And I don't know if I would be intimidated by the presence of a crucifix or by the fact that my freedom is at stake... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke is quite correct. There can never be a crucifix in an American courtroom. That would be considered an outrage. I myself, even though a Roman Catholic, would be outraged. I can only imagine how upsetting the image must have been for Amanda and the entire Knox family, as Americans (although also Roman Catholics). This, especially while Mignini was painting Amanda as some type of crazy killer in front of that crucifix, as well as the whole world. How devastating. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've only got a couple of minutes, so can't enter into the wordy exchanges that are usual on this page. However, you might like to re-read the above comment and consider refactoring it (unless it's a quote from a citable source). BLP (and libel law) applies as much to talk pages as anywhere else. Bluewave (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

NO, I stand by my comment and opinion that Giuliano Mignini horribly defamed Amanda Knox before the world. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am an atheist, but I've never felt threatened or outraged, although cricifixes were in the university classrooms I studied in and in the courtrooms I've attended. I thought it should be removed, but it does not offend me or make me think that somebody's rights might be encroached on. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For Giuliano Mignini to be presenting his delusional theories about Amanda, a Roman Catholic, in front of that crucifix, while characterizing her as some sort of crazy killer must have been totally devastating to her and her family. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an overstatement... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. As a Roman Catholic (yet American) female, that is surely how I would have felt. Furthermore, the American unrest against Mignini is only now coming to the surface. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001171-504083.html Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that there's a great deal of difference between having to serve 16 months and 26 years — and that sentences of up to two years' imprisonment are almost always suspended —, Amanda's in gaol as a precautionary measure because she might commit other crimes, according to the Judges. And because, if freed, she would flee back home and we would never see her again. She is not yet serving her 26 years. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then consider this exact quote fron CBS NEWS in the bolded text that follows:

According to the Italian newsmagazine Panorama, investigators discovered that Mignini maintained computer lists entitled "Attacks to Remember" and "Orgy of Attacks." The lists contained names of journalists, government officials, and members of the Italian Parliament.

Mignini was convicted of launching investigations into his critics in the media, the police, and the government. The prosecutor illegally wiretapped phones and cell phones in his ambition to end the "orgy of attacks."

Because he violated the public trust, the Florence court banned Mignini from holding public office for the rest of his life. But, during his appeal, the prosecutor gets to remain in office. Mignini has not been called on to resign either.

Following his sentencing, Mignini told the media that he has a clear conscious and has done nothing wrong. Back on the job in Perugia, he is again in hot pursuit of some of his critics. Italian media have recently reported that the prosecutor has opened up criminal defamation cases against two Perugia lawyers associated with Amanda Knox's case.

The man who has been barred from ever holding public office in his lifetime, needs to now step aside. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just the presumption of innocence, that you so vehemently advocate as far as Amanda is concerned... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that the truth is becoming known to the American people, thanks in particular to The Learning Channel. As more and more Americans become aware of the gross injustice, the hew and cry will only become louder. Mignini would be doing himself and the Italians a favor by backing off with this crazy killer theory, since there are few Americans who will believe it. The Italians need to realize that this problem will not go away until Amanda and Raffaele are freed. Until then, be prepared for battle. Americans are not, on the whole, stupid people. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's how bullies behave; and I hope that the Italian Courts will not be easily intimidated... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do not know if Amanda is guilty. To be honest, I do not even care that much about this. I only wish that our judicial system and our people in general are not painted as a bunch of idiotic witch-hunters who still try people by ordeal... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the die has been cast. There is no undoing it now. Italy has cast Amanda Knox as a nut who sexually assalted, beat, strangled and cut the throat of her roommate. There will be no stopping things now until the totally innocent Amanda is free and home with her family. Already there are Americans boycotting Italy and I am one of them. My family long had plans to meet in Italy this summer, but now none of us will go due to the way Italy has treated the innocent Amanda Knox. I have traveled all over Europe many times and never have had a single bad experience, but now I would not dare to go to Italy, nor would I allow any family member to go there. Italy has to deal with the public image it has created for itself due to the actions of Giuliano Mignini. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating the totally innocent Amanda: have you read the Judges' report? Have you tried to examine the case without any preconceptions? If Amanda's innocent, she will be acquitted; if she's not, she'll remain in gaol. That's what I think. About the boycott Italy thing, it saddens me, but I, as an Italian, am not ready to give in. I think that our Judges must be free to convict, if they so deem. And I fear that, if push comes to shove, all this fuss the Americans are kicking up will backfire on Amanda... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that there is growing opposition in the U.S., including talk of boycott and fears of going to Italy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

She should only be acquitted if she is innocent, not due to any boycott. But the fact is that she has been innocent all along, but too defamed for people to see that. In any event, the views in the US media seem to be moving in a certain direction and more people are realizing the problems with this case. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html?tag=mncol;lst;1 Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"The U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State.": In God We Trust became the official U.S. national motto after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, which provides: '"In God we trust" is the national motto'. , "having any religious articles in a courtroom": incorrect, American courts will have a Bible (the law has recently been amended to allow other religious books) to swear on. But legal advice for athiests is still to swear on the Bible.Kwenchin (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, if you say that person X has described person Y as a "crazy harlot", and you publish this information globally, you must either be sure that you can prove your facts, or both you and your publisher can expect to hear from X's lawyers and Y's lawyers. In this case, you and Wikipedia are potentially libelling both Mignini and Amanda Knox. Please provide a very clear source or edit the above as a matter of priority. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then, how about "crazy killer"? Is that better? The sources don't report what exact words he said, but the overall gist was defamatory towards Amanda. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kwenchin, you are right about the Bible. I was referring to religious artifacts in courtooms in the form of crucifixes, decorations, statuary, pictures, ect. None of that would typically be allowed in courtrooms. But I suppose there could be a courtroom somewhere in the U.S. which constitutes the exception. The same rules apply to government buildings in general, but I think as to those buildings some non-compliance has been noted on occassion. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For instance, we do not swear on a Bible to tell the truth, but the words of the oath call upon the witness's civic conscience and his civic duty to tell the truth. Frankly, to have to swear on a holy book would make me feel much more uneasy than the mere presence of a chunk of wood, no matter what my faith can be. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In England, there is a royal coat of arms (like this) above and behind the judge's bench, but I don't think there are any other national or religious symbols in the court. The court has a range of holy books available, only one of which is the Christian Bible. It is also acceptable to make a "solemn affirmation" (without any holy book) rather than swearing an oath (with one). Criminal courts are nevertheless intimidating, and are probably intended to be so, with judges and barristers in gowns and wigs, for example. Bluewave (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Guess what? Italy is a Roman Catholic country. And it's courts are going to reflect that. You're right, it's not like that in America. If she wanted to be treated like an American, she should have committed her murder in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all I would like to point out that any democracy as we see it in the western world consists of three powers: The legislature, the executive and the jurisdiction. They are all separated in every western democratic constitution! Please bare this in mind, when you, Zlykinskyja, talk of the "government" (legislature) leaking information to the press. This is most certainly incorrect and untrue. What you probably mean, is that officials from the prosecution (executive) or the court (jurisdiction) has leaked information. I am German not Italian, so therefore I might be wrong, but to my knowledge, the government in Italy is represented in the moment by Silvio Berlusconi and his federal ministers. They most certainly have not leaked any informtion, as they don't have access to it. You might perceive the police, FBI or any legal court in the USA as the government, but in fact you are wrong there as well. -> The government of the USA is represented by President Barrack Obama and his officials, not a judge or the police.

Second, Italy is, like any other western european country, a christian country and the fact that a cruzifix is present in the courtroom only shows, that the legal system is based on the believes, morale rules and standards christianity has formed this country over many centuries. In fact, the presence of a cruzifix is therefore better than not to have one at all, because it reminds at any given time every person attending the trial, that this is a christian court with its christian standards.

To believe, that a person, which was lingerie shopping a few hours after the death of a close friend could be in any shape or form intimidated by a cruzifix in a courtroom is somewhat ridiculous.

Thirdly, the american outcry because of a girl convicted of murder in a foreign state is percieved in Europe with quite some (negative) amazement. The american legal system convicts foreigners according to the US laws on a daily bases. No outcry there, even so the legal system of the USA has been proofen faulty too often to be considered strictly just anymore. The case of Amanda Knox recieved a lot of media interest, which was definately not helping the case of Amanda Knox, but a lot of this media interest (if not the most) originates in the USA, because a sweet all-american girl gets tried for murder in "old Europe". Now, thats a story and a half, don't you think? So, if the press (and you) complain about the excessive publication of the case of Amanda Knox, it needs to blame itself (the press).

If you would like to boycott Italy because of a lawful trial with a verdict you don't like, than this is your decission and prerogative. Loads of Europeans already do that with the United States because of its "worldy" behaviour and this group of people is getting bigger every day. But to be honest, it is again quite ridiculous (from both sides).

You just miss out on things to see and to experience in other countries. Akuram (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One of Sollecito's lawyers is one of the most prominent members of parliament and of the ruling party in Italy. Sollecito's father is wealthy and a prominent person as well. To suggest that anything about the trial was unfair is ridiculous. Sollecito was represented by one of the most important people in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

POV issue

I'd like to know why my minor edit was reverted for being POV [1]: Knox, Sollecito and Guedé were convicted, weren't they? So, to say that they maintain their innocence although they've been convicted is not really POV. It is merely a statement of fact... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about POV, but it's a bit redundant, and odd wording. The article makes it clear that all three have been convicted. They maintain their innocence. Them's the facts, and that's all that is needed. 'Despite' could be read as meaning 'although they are guilty'.   pablo_hablo. 12:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, the fact that they "maintain, that they are innocent", even though they are convicted should be stated togehter. I think it is crucial in this matter, that these two facts (innocence vs. conviction) are stated together, otherwise it might look to the casual reader, that the conviction might be unlawful or unjust and therefore one could get the impression that the article is taking sides (in favor of Knox, Sollecito and Guedé). The verdict comes from a respected Italian court, which cannot be disputed by a mere Wikipedia scribbler. Everybody please also take in consideration, that from the moment of the verdict, the principle "innocent until prooven guilty" is not applicable anymore. Instead it is: "guilty until verdict is successfully appealed". Akuram (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye, couldn't have said it better myself. As for the "odd wording", it's just that English is not my mother tongue... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't passing any opinion on the correctness of the verdict or the actual guilt or innocence of any of the three parties. I still think that wording's unnecessary, but that may just be my opinion. You could try asking whoever removed it in the first place.   pablo_hablo. 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pablo. The intro and article make it perfectly clear that the two students were convicted. There is no necessity that the fact of conviction and their position of innocence all be stated in one sentence. It is not accurate that this verdict is necessarily correct. There stands a good chance that they could be found innocent at their second trial. They are still "presumed innocent" under both Italian and US law until a FINAL determination is made in this matter. The problem I have with the new additional phrase that Salvio tried to add is that, as Pablo noted, the phrase implies that they are somehow taking an incorrect position by stating that they are innocent. Yet, there is nothing incorrect about it at all. They may indeed be factually innocent of the crime, and as a matter of law they have the right to proclaim their innocence and are still presumed innocent at this time. So the additional phrase will only mislead the reader, and provoke a need for new additional language to clarify their status. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire my friend, they are not presumed innocent any more. The court gave a verdict and it states, that they are guilty of murder and other crimes. They have been convicted! I know, you think that the verdict might be wrong, but you are not in the position to dispute a rightful verdict. You have to go with it and wait for the outcome of the appeal, in which the verdict might get overruled or might not. Until then, even though you might not like that at all, they have been found guilty of murder. Please do not change this article in the way, you feel is correct or fair or just, as you are not the judge nor a member of the court and it is not a question of how one feels about it. Corrections you have made and you are still doing are all in favor of the position of at least Knox and Sollecito and therefore bias and don't represent a NPOV. Akuram (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, the Italian law is extremely different than U.S. or UK viewpoints. So, we're not sure about the meaning of "guilty" in Italy: it is a spoken verdict, but perhaps not a conviction, yet. Sollecito claims his computer had recorded his offline usage (all during the time of the murder), but Mignini's people destroyed Sollecito's PC and that evidence is lost. The problem was highlighted when Prosecutor Mignini was "convicted" of judicial misconduct for illegal evidence with the Monster of Florence journalists, but even still, he is allowed to serve in the courtroom, pending the appeal of judgment (like a fox in the henhouse with chicken confirmed in the belly, but was it these chickens?!?!). I hope this makes sense: the conviction is not really set until the appeal stages have determined that it is, in fact, a valid conviction. Hence, we believe that Mignini might have been tried, convicted, and guilty as a skunk for using illegal evidence, but he is free to falsify more evidence, in court, until his appeal-process lands him in prison for years. That's why we hesitate to say "convicted" for Guede, Knox or Sollecito. In Texas, a person can be judged "guilty" but released on appeal bond if the sentence is below 15 years and 1 day. -08:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the above discussion. Acuram states that Guede, Knox and Sollecito's are "are not presumed innocent any more" (unless and until the verdict is successfully appealed), whereas Zlykinskyja says they are still "presumed innocent" under Italian law (I don't think U.S. law is relevant to this). Can anyone please clarify exactly what their status is under Italian law (preferably with a citation)? I don't think it is our job to discuss whether they are guilty or innocent, but it is our job to be clear and factually accurate about their status under law. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they are still considered innocent (under art. 27 of the Italian Constitution) — but that only means that they cannot be gaoled to serve their twenty-five or twenty-six years, and in fact they are gaoled as a precautionary measure —. But they've been found guilty, we cannot overlook that; if their appeal were deemed unreceivable, this verdict would become res judicata. Scholars in Italy have been debating for years over the meaning of the presumption of innocence clause in the Constitution — and the weight carried by a first-instance conviction —; suffice it to say, I think, that although still technically presumed innocent, a Court of Law has already ruled once on the matter — and convicted. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio! Now I understand exactly why I'm confused :-) Bluewave (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Arkuram is wrong on this issue of the presumption of innocence. But we quite a while ago debated this at great length, so I don't think we need to revisit this issue all over again. The Italian system and the US system are very similar on the presumption of innocence. The presumption applies until conviction. Upon conviction the presumption disappears. However, if an appeal of the conviction is filed the presumption is reinstated upon the date of filing. On March 4 or 5, 2010 the lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele signed papers stating that they were appealing the motivation report "on all points." Thus, when they filed their appeal, the presumption of innocence was reinstated. Now they will have a trial de novo at the Court of Appeals with a new jury and new judges. They will have the opportunity to provide new evidence. Their lawyers have stated that they intend to introduce additional evidence on the DNA evidence. At the trial de novo, there will be new findings of fact, new determinations of guilt or innocence. Until there is a FINAL determination of guilt or innocence, the presumption of innocence still applies. That is how it works in the US and by everything I have been able to find, the Italian system is identical as far as the presumption of innocence is concerned. In terms of res judicata, in both the US and in Italy res judicata does not apply during the appeal period. In the US, for example, if someone is convicted of a crime and then dies AFTER he filed his appeal papers, but before the appeal is completed, his conviction is deemed vacated because the presumption of innocence was reinstated when he filed his appeal and there was no final determination of his guilt or innocence before his death. If he is convicted and then dies BEFORE he files his appeal papers, then the conviction stands under principles of res judicata. Thus, since Amanda and Raffaele have initiated their appeal as of March 4 or 5, 2010(although the specific points of appeal will not be revealed until the detailed papers are filed by next Monday) their current status is "presumed innocent." Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is roughly correct. In Italy the presumption of innocence is not reinstated after an Appeal has been filed, but applies until the term to appeal has expired. And the death of the defendant during a trial estingue (literally, extinguishes, that is to say render null and void) the crime itself. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, my username is Akuram, not Acuram or Arkuram! :)

Second, I still contradict Zlykinskyja, since the presumption of innocence is to my knowledge not stated in any law in Italy (after conviction). The general principle is stated in the constitution, yes, but it is open to debate if and how this is applicable to a convicted person. And make no mistake, Knox, Sollecito and Guede are all convicted of murder! Their convictions still stand until they are appealed succesfully. So, it would be misleading to over higlight the fact that they maintain that they are innocent, while they are convicted. This would, in my humble opinion lead to a none NPOV. Akuram (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Akuram, Salvio is an Italian lawyer. He agrees with me that the Italian and US applications of the presumption of innocence are essentially the same. In both the US and Italy the presumption of innocence continues until the appeal process is completed. Unless you can cite to something backing you up, I think you need to concede the issue. It is impossible for the presumption of innocence to apply to the appeal process, and for the defendants to be viewed as "guilty" due to the first trial----at the very same time. A person cannot be officially guilty and officially presumed innocent at the same time. That is all I want to say about this dead horse. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, folks, this is wikipedia. Rather than repeat an argument, please just link to it. Since Salvio is an Italian lawyer, it should be trivial for him to provide a cite to back up the statement and bring an end to this discussion. Just stating it carries no weight without the cite, per WP:V. User:LeadSongDog come howl 22:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here you are:

1 The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgment is passed. (art. 27 const.)

2 Sono irrevocabili le sentenze pronunciate in giudizio contro le quali non è ammessa impugnazione diversa dalla revisione.

Se l'impugnazione è ammessa, la sentenza è irrevocabile quando è inutilmente decorso il termine per proporla o quello per impugnare l'ordinanza che la dichiara inammissibile. Se vi è stato ricorso per cassazione, la sentenza è irrevocabile dal giorno in cui è pronunciata l'ordinanza o la sentenza che dichiara inammissibile o rigetta il ricorso.

Il decreto penale di condanna è irrevocabile quando è inutilmente decorso il termine per proporre opposizione o quello per impugnare l'ordinanza che la dichiara inammissibile. (art. 648 c.p.p. — here the Code states which verdicts are irrevocable)

3 Salvo che sia diversamente disposto, le sentenze e i decreti penali hanno forza esecutiva quando sono divenuti irrevocabili.

Le sentenze di non luogo a procedere hanno forza esecutiva quando non sono più soggette a impugnazione. ([http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=36871 art. 650 c.p.p. — here the Code states that only irrevocable verdicts are enforceable).

This is an interesting short essay (in Italian), written by a Judge of the Appellate Court of Assizes of Rome, dealing with new evidence during the trial de novo. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Salvio, any chance for an english translation (I mean point 2 and 3)? Akuram (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Only by me, if it is enough...

The verdicts delivered at the end of a trial that can no longer be appealed — except by way of the review of trial — are irrevocable.

If a verdict is appealable, it becomes irrevocable after the term to appeal it has expired or when the term to appeal the Court order declaring unreceivable the appeal has expired. If the order was appealed before the Court of Cassation, its verdict is irrevocable from the day when the order or the sentence (sentenza) was delivered, that rebuts the appeal or declares it unreceivable.

The penal decree of conviction becomes irrevocable when the term to challenge it or when term to appeal the order declaring unreceivable the challenge has expired. (art. 648 c.p.p.)

Unless otherwise provided for by law, sentences and penal decrees of conviction are enforceable only when they have become irrevocable.

Sentences of non luogo a procedere (no grounds to proceed) are enforceable when they are no longer appealable. (art. 650 c.p.p.)

Sorry if I made any mistakes or if I were not clear enough. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... that still presents the question, what is meant (intended) by "until final jugdement is passed". Does the final judgement include appeals? Or is this the written down principle "innocent until prooven guilty", which only holds up till the conviction. And convicted they were. I still believe that one needs to find a source or citation for the fact, that already the attempted appeal nullifies the guilt of the convicted person and not the other way round. But apparently this is a dead horse and Knox/Sollecito supporters don't need sources or citations. Akuram (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that we're starting to see books published by the professional journalists that were at the trial, it becomes obvious that your ( Zlykinskyja) efforts to defend Knox are the amateur hour. It's well past time that this article started including the facts that came out in the trial and are being reported in the books, and you can give up your amateur effort to free her. The time trial section should be the straight story of how Knox and Sollecito killed her that was presented at the trial, instead of your fantasy version. It's clear now that Knox and Sollecito brought Rudy back to the cottage to complete a drug deal and it's indefensible that it's not mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvio, that's very constructive.User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 173.25.240.217, please stop with these personal attacks. My input into this article does not consitute "amateur hour" any more than anyone else's input does. Furthermore, my writing here does not constitute an "amateur effort to free her" anymore than your efforts constitute an amateur effort to convict her. Under Wikipedia rules both sides of the story need to be included in the article. You might not like that, but that is the policy. In the meantime, you need to stop posting your repeated personal attacks against me on this Talk page, including saying that I should give up participating in the article. That just isn't going to happen. I will be participating whether you like it or not. Furthermore, the information that I have included or tried to include does not constitute my "fantasy". I have included only well sourced material from mainstream US media. My contributions are valuable since without my input this article would be largely one sided in violation of NPOV policy. Please stop with this nonsense. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the Friends of Amanda webpage. That's great that you personally believe Amanda Knox is innocent. But that's not what the courts in Perugia have decided. They've found her guilty of murder. The "Murder of Meredith Kercher" is about how Guede, Sollecito, and Knox killed her. Since you will be participating whether I like it or not, maybe it's time I started making a lot of edits to the article. Sound fun for you? Or maybe the article should be edited by people other than us that don't have a POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

After all this debate, how about someone writing a short section on the current legal status of the three accused? I'd have a go at it myself, but I'm still not entirely clear what it is! I think it is the kind of thing that would be a useful addition to the article--certainly for readers like me who live in countries where there is no automatic right of appeal and where a defendant is considered guilty if a court finds them guilty. Bluewave (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than glad to do this, but, actually, I do not know what to write... The situation is: they are still presumed innocent, but they've been convicted by a Court of first instance. If this Court rejects or declares the appeal unreceivable, the conviction becomes res judicata; if the Court quashes or changes the verdict, it's this verdict that will become res judicata, if it's not appealed or if the Court of Cassation rejects or declares unreceivable the appeal. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Things should be clearer by early next week. That is the deadline for filing the points of appeal. If the defense attorneys miss the deadline or if the court rejects the filings (possibly due to form) and does not extend the deadline, then the guilty verdicts becomes res judicata and Amanda and Raffaele are deemed officially guilty. I doubt this will happen though. By next week the points of appeal will probably be properly before the court, with the presumption of innocence of Amanda and Raffaele safely intact until the moment the new jury at the Court of Appeals announces its verdict in late 2010. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I edited the text of the article very slightly to make it clear that both sides have a right of appeal and I added a few sentences to say that the prosecution filed their appeal yesterday. Bluewave (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are we now

Having not edited the article for nearly 2 weeks (and actually not spent much time looking at Wikipedia in that time), I thought I'd re-read the whole article and clarify at least my own view of where we are. So here goes...

• I think the lead is the best part. We've managed to keep it to fact, not opinions. Some of the wording could be tightened up, but it summarises the events. Maybe there could be less detail about some things and more about others, but that is not a major problem.
• The rest of the article is quite disorganized and repetitive (just one example—the allegation that the police struck Knox on the head is discussed in three different places). I think one reason for the repetitive nature is that there have been cases where editors have worked hard to agree neutral versions of particular sections, only to have less neutral descriptions of the same thing reappear somewhere else.
• The very negative portrayal of Guede (particularly compared with the other defendants) is something that has been discussed here on the talk page but has not yet really been tackled. Quite a lot of the Guede section is taken from a few extremely negative media portrayals. Such negative portrayals of Knox also exist (eg the Fantasy world fuelled by sex, drink and drugs story from The Times), but we have (correctly in my view) avoided reproducing them in the article. Even the description of Guede as a "drifter" is more journalistic than encyclopaedic. It's the kind of description that a newspaper can use to convey a negative portrayal without actually risking a libel action.
• There is a huge amount of detail about timelines and forensic details. We have had discussions before about the purpose of the article not being to encourage readers to be "armchair CSI investigators" but I think the article still reads like this.
• With the controversies section, it is difficult to distinguish genuine controversies from those that are purely invented by newspapers to liven up the story on a dull day. For instance, there is still stuff about "satanic rites", despite that theory never having been aired in open court and never mentioned at the main trials of any of the suspects. It is rather stretching credulity to suggest that it is a major controversy concerning the murder.
• The pretrial publicity section remains an open issue, discussed earlier on this page. I have suggested a way forward, but without managing to provoke a debate! Whatever the way forward, I think that we should develop the press coverage section to focus more on the unusual aspects of the coverage: the potentially prejudicial pretrial publicity; the manipulation of the media by the Knox family and the personal attacks on the prosecutor, Mignini, are all notable features of the case and only the first is currently addressed.

Just my thoughts on the tough job facing us with this article. Bluewave (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the editors read "Angel Face" by Barbie Latza Nadeau before you go any further. A Newsweek reporter in Italy for 14 years, she was at the trial, and she adds a lot of important details about the crime that haven't been included her at all. She talks about the evidence presented against the two at the trial in great detail. There are lots of things that point to these two having committed the crime that are not even hinted at in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, I agree that the negative portrayal of Guede could be put into a better context. To go along with your example of his portrayal as a "drifter", Guede is refered to here as a "known drug dealer" .. while the article makes only a passing, almost casual mention of Knox admitting to drug use the night of the crime. This is one point that I am surprised has not received much more attention, after all, marijuana is illegal in Italy. Jonathan (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: The "negative portrayal of Guede" is entirely justified. By his own admission he left Meredith Kercher to bleed to death without calling authorities. He was dancing at a disco later that night. The evidence against him is overwhelming. The information on him is NOT taken from a a few negative articles and is largely undisputed. Of course anyone who wants to speak with expertise on the case should read Barbie Latza Nadeau's book, as I have. They should also keep in mind the gravity of her past history of incorrect reporting on the case. She incorrectly reported that AK had had seven sex parters in Italy and that Rudy Guede had no defensive wounds. More recently she makes heavily disputed statements that mixed blood samples were found . She does indeed say that important details were not reported in the US. But that begs the question, why didn't she report them? She wrote at least 20 articles between Newsweek and the Daily Beast.SPCGuru (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Users here should be aware that a mediation on this topic has been opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/Murder of Meredith Kercher. Everyone is welcome to participate, and participating does not place any requirements on you to do anything - Mediation is a way to find a consensus everyone can live with. Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a few factual developments due in the next few days—the filing of appeals by all the parties (one of which was filed yesterday). I assume there is no problem in our adding a brief update of these events to the article, to keep it current, while the mediation takes place, is there? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. I added an edit with responsive info to Bluewave's last edit before I read this notice that mediation had started. I thought it was starting after April 29. I agree with Bluewave that there will be a lot of new info next week, so I think we need to clarify whether that new info can be added, given that the mediation will not be officially starting till after April 29. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this article however they want. I don't have magic police powers as the mediator, I have magic powers of not caring about this article and being able to broker an agreement everyone can live with. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mignini's conviction

The fact that he was convicted ("ironically" or not, which, by the way, is not a neutral way of putting it) has nothing to do with the appeal process; it's neither a matter of citations as you appear to imply here, nor a matter of censorship as you imply here. As I've repeated over and over again, it has no bearing whatsoever on the appeal process, nor or on the outcome of said appeal. It can be placed in the controversies section, not here. It would be off topic and rather POV. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite has suggested that we apply the BRD process for any controversial issues (and TMC-k has suggested this previously). Zlykinskyja has Boldly edited; Salvio has Reverted; Salvio has opened a Discussion. Why don't we try to develop this discussion, rather than edit warring. To that end: I agree with Salvio that the charges against Mignini have nothing to do with the appeal. They should be covered in the article, but not here. I also think we should generally avoid repeating the views of journalists, such as what they regard as ironic. We use media sources to establish facts but we should surely try to avoid reporting journalists' opinions. Bluewave (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2010

(UTC)

The information is in a quote from a reputable news source, in response to a quote from Mignini. His quote is included as his opinion of the matter. It is not fact, but Mignini's opinion. Including the opinions of others about what such a highly controversial figure as Mignini is doing is completely appropriate. Mignini has been convicted in a first trial of abuse of his powers as a public official and has been barred from holding public office for the rest of his life. He continues to exercise his public powers against Knox and Sollecito pending his appeal. Surely this is a highly unusual situation, and something that would never, ever be allowed in the US. I have never heard of such a thing ever happening in the US. It is highly notable information from the US perspective that the very man who is trying to impose life sentences on K and S has such a background of criminal abuse allegations, since in the US a prosecutor facing such charges would be immediately suspended from his job pending the final outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. The fact that a prosecutor with such a background is the same one seeking life sentences against K and S is highly relevant to the claim by the Knox family that what Mignini is doing is "harassment." The abuse charges against Mignini also involve harassment in the form of intimidating and wiretapping journalists.

There is no rule against including the opinions of news journalists--this article has lots and lots of that already. There seems to be one standard for the editors on the pro-guilt side of the case, and other standards for the editors on the pro-innocence side of the case. To say that we cannot use a quote from a journalistic source imposes a whole new limitation that has never been used to limit the pro-guilt side of the case. As another example of double standards, Bluewave included a quote in this same paragraph from the Daily Mail. Yet he recently deleted my use of this very same source, the Daily Mail, on the basis that the Daily Mail is not reputable but more of a tabloid. So its a "tabloid that cannot be used" when it has information supporting my edits, but it is a "reliable source" when it has information that Bluewave wants to use. This "double standard" will then be enforced by "consensus", which means that I will be automatically outnumbered and voted down by the pro-guilt side of the article, resulting in a POV outcome. Thus, the dynamics of the numbers make it extremely difficult to achieve NPOV in this article, despite NPOV being the essential goal of Wikipedia. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to pick out some the main points from Z's post...

• Yes the stuff about Mignini's conviction is from a reliable source and is notable. However, I would say there are better places to put it in the article than in a section about the filing of appeals. It would be inappropriate if, every time we mentioned Mignini, we said something negative about him. Every time we mention a statement by Knox, we don't add "which is ironic, given that she has been convicted of giving false evidence". The same applies to Mignini.
• The quote by Mignini looks relevant because it helps to explain why the prosecution have filed their appeal. By contrast, the quote about his conviction is purely a personal attack and sheds no light on the appeal process.
• With regard to our including the opinion of journalists, I would say that they are only notable in sections such as that on press reactions. Otherwise, they are just the opinion of one person. You're right that we shouldn't have double standards on this, and I would suggest removing all journalistic opinion from the article unless there are exceptional cases.
• With regard to the reliability of the Mail as a source, I previously said that it has some claims to serious journalism although not being regarded as the "quality press".[2] Nick Pisa does at least go to Italy to research his articles and does at least speak the language. I would have quoted The Times but I think they have lost interest in the Kercher murder. I don't recall the occasion when I deleted part of the article on the basis that it was sourced from the Mail: could Zlykinskyja please remind me what that was.

Bluewave (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Would you please stop attacking me [3]; it is evident that you misunderstood the meaning of the 3rr rule (and risked violating it, yesterday: 1st revert, 2nd revert and 3rd revert). You're trying to insert wrong or superfluous pieces of information:

1. it is superfluous to write that new evidence will be admitted and new witnesses heard, because that's implicit in the concept of trial de novo, because testimonies are a kind of evidence and because new evidence will be admitted only if the Court allows it;
2. it is wrong that there will be another Prosecutor: under article 570.III of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mignini might be the prosecutor again. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: You made at least three revert edits yesterday, but I did not say anything about it on the Talk page. Now here you start a whole topic about it on the Talk page to attack me. Why don't YOU stop attacking ME! I have had it with these personal attacks that you have been making for weeks, including trying to get me banned or blocked for no legitimate reason. That is not something that I have ever tried to do to you and the other people who have tried for weeks to get me banned or blocked (essentially because my views on the case are opposite of yours and the others), and I think that speaks volumes about who has been making the personal attacks around here. In terms of my reverts, those were only in response to YOUR efforts to repeatedly revert my work, which you do over and over. I hardly ever revert other people's work, yet that has been done COUNTLESS times to me, and I wish people would cut that out. How would you like it if your work was constantly reverted like that.

As for your deletions of the information about Mignini's convictions I don't see that as legitimate at all. Since it now appears that he will be part of the appeal, because he filed his own appeal, and could be the main prosecutor as you now say, that makes his criminal conviction for abuse of power in another murder case all the more important. If he is someone who is willing to break the law in a criminal manner in his handling of murder cases, then that is information relevant to any assessement of his highly controversial handling of the Sollecito and Knox case. This information is disturbing to people in the US, and is constantly noted in the media. Thus, the information about his conviction for abuse of power and abetting should not have been deleted from the article yesterday.

In terms of your deletions of the information about new evidence and new witnesses, that issue is far from self-evident and needs to be clarified in the article. It is new information to US readers because that is usually not allowed in our appeals, unless a new trial is ordered as a RESULT of the appeal. But since we consider new trials and appeals two completely different procedures, there will be many questions on the part of US readers and the information should not have been deleted from the article. You should consider that I am writing for a US audience (as well as other English speakers) that does not understand Italian criminal procedures. What you see as self-evident is not self-evident to those who are not Italian lawyers. If I have said something incorrect, then the information should be corrected not deleted entirely.

You also deleted the information about the defense lawyers stating that Mignini "botched the case", claiming that is POV. No, it is not POV, it is a correct interpretation of the views of the defense counsel as reported in the newspaper. The fact that the defense attorneys express their personal opinions in the case does not make the inclusion of their views here POV for purposes of Wikipedia policy. The opinions on both sides of the case are properly included under the NPOV policy. Clearly, if only the prosecution opinions are included, this article can never become NPOV. While the opinion expressed of Mignini's work may be harsh, I think it pales in comparison to the opinions already included in the article such as Knox having "the eyes of a killer" and "a diabolical soul".

I would appreciate it if you could cool it with the deletions. Thank you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

DNA Evidence Deletions

Bluewave has raised the issue again of whether there is too much info on the DNA evidence/section and whether or not that info/section should be deleted or beefed up. I think yesterday's appeal filing shows that the DNA issue is now front and center of this case. The DNA section needs to be beefed up, not deleted, IMHO.

Most importantly I ask people to seriously consider this question: If Knox was involved in a violent attack on Kercher, how could her DNA, hair, fiber or fingerprints not be found at the murder scene, as Guede's DNA was found? Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Could I respectfully suggest that it is not our role to consider the implications of the lack of Knox's DNA etc at the murder scene. That is the job of the police, and the courts. Our job is to report the facts in a neutral way, rather than trying to draw our own conclusions from them. Bluewave (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, you should also consider that a murder weapon wasn't found in the room either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't never there at all. Wikipedia does not need to play CSI. Jonathan (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Detailed timeline

The earlier discussion about deleting the detailed timeline has been archived. The presentation in the timeline doesn't even come close to Wikipedia standards and the events seem to be covered in the body of the article. Should I just go ahead and delete this section? Footwarrior (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently the subject of mediation (see somewhere above). Hipocrite, who is leading the mediation has suggested that, during the mediation process, editors restrict themselves to the WP:BRD process—ie making Bold edits, Reverting such edits if we disagree with them, then Discussing the issue (rather than edit warring). My advice (for what its worth) is that follow Hipocrite's advice and make the bold edit then, if it is reverted, open the discussion. I know the timeline has been discussed before but I would be inclined to stick to Hipocrite's proposed approach while the mediation is taking place. Bluewave (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. Any major changes to the article, like deleting or modifying a whole section, should be discussed in mediation. The way I read what Hipocrite was saying is that typical edits can be done outside of the mediation process, but not major changes like restructuring the article or deleting sections. There has been a ton of work put into the timeline section. There is no need to rush to delete that section. It does no harm just sitting there, and would best be taken up during formal mediation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. There are no prohibitions against boldly editing this article, except that I suggest you not edit war. Hipocrite (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective I would prefer that major deletions and restructuring be discussed in mediation first so that material is not removed without some sort of formal review. I assume that is the type of review that mediation can accomplish if requested. It gets discouraging when a lot of time is put in to do the research and writing and then it gets deleted. I think the timeline can be improved upon and made a useful section in the article. It helps me to focus on the sequence of events when I look at it, and I would think some others find it useful as well. But I recognize that the timeline needs a lot more work, as do many of the other sections. This is all a work in progress. It is getting done in bits and pieces since we are just volunteers. I think the more that is added to the article, the more informative it becomes. Then later, after everything is added, we can go back and do some pruning and tightening up. At least, that is what I have had in mind as one of the writers. Zlykinskyja (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is not a formal review. It's a way for all parties to reach an agreement on something. If you don't want to put a lot of time in to do research and writing because you are worried that mediation will reach agreement - with you - then wait. Right now, you've asked that we wait to start the mediation for another 11 days because you're not able to edit. Just because that process is delayed dosen't mean this article is frozen at all. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the topics that I hope we can agree on somewhere is the courtroom events section. I have added a templete to mark this section as needing more discussion. But I don't intend to make any major changes to that section until we hash it out in mediation since it strikes me that that would be the more harmonious way to try to change someone else's work. I understand that things are not frozen, it just seems that mediation would be the better format for major changes. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Persuant to my mediation strategy, as opposed to tagging the section, could you instead rewrite it in your userspace to the version that you would prefer? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Response on Mediation page.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to a discussion of the detailed timeline section. Is there anyone willing to defend the six lines for the time period 13:10 to 13:16? In the "Timeline and police investigation" section, these events were described more appropriately (i.e. "The door to Kercher's room was forced open") for an encyclopedia The times are not known to the precision suggested by the timeline. Even if we knew the precise times, they are not important to understanding the case. Footwarrior (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaced lines from 12:55 on with one line. The Massei report states that Filomena and her friends arrived at about 1 PM and that the victims body was discovered shortly after 1 PM. The times extending to 13:15 are not supported.Footwarrior (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference Massei report to replace a dead reference for times of phone calls.Footwarrior (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue of prejudicial pretrial publicity and trial impact

Aside from the fact, that this section badly needs to be rewritten is there a reason why it cannot be in the "various controversies" section [4]? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal section

I have made a bold edit to the appeal section which appeared to me to be written in a highly-POV manner. I have tried to remove all the opinion from both the prosecution and defence parts and leave just the facts. The previous version:

• confused opinion with fact eg "The appeal also highlights that the DNA evidence in the case was seriously flawed";
• included a lot of non-notable opinion (not notable that Knox's parents and her lawyers think she is innocent);
• made the defence part totally disproportionate to the coverage of the prosecution case;
• read like it had been written by the "Friends of Amanda" (though I know it wasn't).

I think my new version looks more balanced and encyclopaedic but this edit was made in the spirit of WP:BRD! Bluewave (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: I find your repeated attempts at censorship very disturbing. There is no rule of Wikipedia that opinions cannot be included in the article if they are identified as opinion, relevant, and well sourced. You do not have the authority to make up your own new rule that opinions on one side of the case cannot be included in an article. It is also troubling that you consider the opinions of the police and prosecutor and court as "fact", while the views of the defense lawyers and family and other lawyers are viewed as "opinion." In realty, both sides of the case are merely opinion since no one really knows what happened that night. It is merely the opinion of those on the prosecution/police/court side that Knox engaged in a murder and other specific acts, yet that is stated as fact all over the article and Knox is painted on here as a horrible killer. If you are going to continue to try to block 'the other side of the story' from being included in this story, (even during mediation!) then I will have no choice but to notify the Wikipedia Foundation of what is going on, since by blocking the other side of the story, Knox will end up being defamed. There is no way anyone should be painting Knox as a killer, and then blocking the inclusion of information that presents the other side of the story. ENOUGH! Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This story reads as if Knox is a horrible person who sexually assaulted and killed her roomate, and then lied about it. If in fact she is telling the truth that she did none of these things, then this article could be viewed as defamatory. The way to counter-act that is to allow the "other side of the story" into the article, so that the reader is allowed to see the claims and opinions of those who see her as innocent, such as her lawyers. I have said this over and over, yet it as if I am talking to a brick wall. Over and over and over Knox's side of the story keeps getting deleted. It is very discouraging and a HUGE waste of my time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the BRD process says "Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person"....so I think I've dome that!! I did think that I had made clear in the edit summary and my comment above that I was trying to apply that process, not applying censorship. Looking at your points, I don't believe that the opinions of the police and prosecutor are fact: I agree with you that both sides of the case are merely opinion and no one really knows what happened. However, I disagree with your assertion that it is stated as fact all over the article that Knox engaged in a murder. If it does say that anywhere in the article, please point out where, and I will be very keen to help change the wording. If you want to report me to the Wikipedia Foundation, you are very welcome, but I would rather continue trying to apply BRD. So I think you are premature in saying "ENOUGH"...we haven't even begun to discuss this and try to reach a consensus. To that end, it would be helpful if you could say why you disagree with my assertion that my edit improves the article because it is more consise, more encyclopedic and less POV? Also, are you saying that you think my version is defamatory? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that this article could be viewed as defamatory if it ends up painting Knox as a girl who sexually assaulted and sliced the throat of her roommate and then lied about it, and it turns out not to be true. There is a real possibilty that none of the horrible things said about her in the article are true at all. Since these claims against her are merely opinions, repeatedly removing the counter-opinions will leave the reader with only information that could ultimately turn out to be totally wrong. The objective needs to be that the article presents the claims against her, but also presents the information as to why the claims are wrong. You included a quote from Mignini about his filing. I tried to include quotes showing the other side, NOW you reverse yourself and say quotes cannot be included, apparently because I came up with more quotes. Now you want to block all statements of opinion from the Knox side. You just don't seem to grasp that these efforts to block the Knox side of the case will result in a defamatory article. That is inevitable, since the charges against her are essentially defamatory if untrue. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, my version was:

On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed its appeal against what they regard as the leniency of Knox's and Sollecito's sentences. Their grounds for appeal were that the post-verdict judges' report had said that the murder was committed for purely casual reasons, and they claim that this would call for the maximum penalty of life. The prosecution had sought life sentences in the original trial.

On 17 April 2010, the lawyers for Knox filed an over 300 page appeal, seeking to overturn her conviction. In their appeal, a new witness has been found who they claim can prove that Knox and Sollecito were not involved in Kercher's killing. The appeal also challenges the DNA evidence in the case, and seeks to have an additional analysis of the DNA evidence, that was not allowed during the first trial, to be introduced during the second trial at the Court of Appeals. The defence intend to repudiate all points of the sentence, including re-examining Knox's questioning by police (where they claim she was denied her basic rights), the DNA evidence and the blood traces detected with luminol. The defence also claim that the prosecution has failed to deliver to them all the paperwork and documentation related to the forensic testing.

The lawyers for Raffaele Sollecito also filed a lengthy appeal of his conviction comprising over 270 pages.

The appeal will proceed as a trial de novo (new trial) which is expected to take place in the autumn of 2010 before the Appellate Court of Assizes, presided over by Judge Emanuele Medoro.

There is no quote from Mignini in it. Instead of a quote, which would express a point of view, I have made it factual, stating the basis for the prosecution's appeal, and have done the same for the defence. Surely that is less POV than having a load of quotes to the effect that Amanda is innocent. I can't see anything defamatory in it at all—I'm trying to express the facts in a way that make no assertions about guilt or innocence. Bluewave (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What I said is that YOU started off by including a quote from Mignini about his appeal. Then when I added quotes showing the other side of the story, you reversed yourself and suddenly decided that quotes should not be used and deleted them all. I will not go along with such censorship. The Knox side of the case can only be expressed through the statements of opinions. That is all they have at this point. There is no rule or policy of Wikipedia that quotes stating opinions cannot be used. So, there is no legitimate basis for you to now suddenly claim that quotes cannot be used. As for making things "less POV" now that is really funny. You have included all this stuff on here leading the reader to believe that Knox is factually guilty, but information presenting the other side of the story is "POV". Then you deny that you are editing in a manner that is anything but neutral. Not so. This article reads like Knox commited a horrible murder. The main way to counter-act that is to show what her lawyers say and do for purposes of an appeal. Now you want to water that all down like it is a footnote! No, it is not a footnote it is the MAIN REBUTTAL OF THE DEFENSE. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As for making things "concise and encyclopecic" that is a double standard as well. You don't use that standard when including information damaging to Knox. In the text below you go into great detail reflecting your views on the interrogation, far longer than the one brief paragraph you will allow for the appeal. You could have just said "Knox made incriminating statements against Patrick Lumumba, which she later retracted and said she had been intimidated into making the claims."

"Knox and Sollecito were interviewed several times by the police on the day the murder was discovered and the following two days. On 5 November 2007, Knox voluntarily accompanied Sollecito to the police station where he gave a statement, in the course of which he said that he did not know for sure that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. The police then decided to question Knox and began the interview at 23.00 that evening. Knox was interviewed twice during the night of 5–6 November, firstly by the judicial police and then, later, in the presence of a prosecutor. During these interviews, Knox made statements implicating Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar-restaurant named Le Chic, at which she occasionally worked. She said that she had accompanied Lumumba to Kercher's house and had been in the kitchen and heard screams while Lumumba committed the murder. The contents of these statements was widely reported in the press at the time. Knox later claimed that both statements were made under duress and that she had been coerced into implicating Lumumba: she said that she had been struck twice on the back of the head during the questioning, called a "stupid liar" and when asked did she hear screams she had replied no. This is denied by the police who have now responded with a defamation charge. The conduct of these interviews remains an area of controversy in the case, with Knox's lawyer, when summing up at the end of her trial, stating that they lasted a total of 53 hours, a stressful and frightening experience for Knox. Knox was formally arrested later on the morning of 6 November. Some time afterwards she made a written note to the police, explaining that she was confused when she made the earlier statements, saying "I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion". However, she still seemed to incriminate Lumumba, saying: "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik [Lumumba], but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." She went on to say "I see Patrik [sic] as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night." She noted that she wrote that account, just hours later, to clarify that those supposed "mental block" memories, requested by the police, did not seem real to her .This written note was admissible at the trial of Knox and Sollecito. However, following a ruling by the Court of Cassation, the statements made to police during the night of 5–6 November were not: one because she was being interviewed as a witness and the other because no lawyer was present. Nevertheless, the judge (at the Knox trial) ruled that both statements were admissible in Lumumba's civil case against Knox, which was being tried in the same court at the same time as the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito. Lumumba was arrested on 6 November 2007 as a result of Knox's statements. He was detained for two weeks until the arrest of Guede. Initially doubts about his alibi were reported in the press, but ultimately he was completely exonerated." (end of Bluewave's "concise" presentation of interrogation issue) Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the specific edit in question—it's hard enough trying to get consensus on that without discussing previous versions of the article, or the whole article. There is no rule that we can't use quotes, but I maintain that the version without quotes is more neutral (and there is a rule that we should be aiming for that). Both sides of the case, to date, are described in other sections of the article and I certainly believe that those sections explain the defence case at least is well as the prosecution case. We are talking here about the specific issue of the appeals. Both sides have filed appeals and we should cover both sides as equally as we can. However, none of the appeals submissions have been made public, let alone presented in court. We will no doubt go into all the detail when that happens. The Knox side have used the filing of the appeal as an opportunity to tell everyone, not for the first time, that Amanda is innocent. I don't think there is anything notable in this. They say they have new evidence, and we should mention that (and I did). They mention other things they are going to contest, such as the DNA evidence (and I have mentioned those too). However, the quotes about Amanda being innocent and the prosecution having allegedly botched the case are not, in my view, the main rebuttal by the defence: they are a lot of rhetoric for the benefit of the media. So I strongly disagree with you on that point. Bluewave (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I have had enough. This is where I draw a line in the sand after COUNTLESS HOURS, possibly hundreds of hours spent trying to include the Knox side of the story in this defamatory article. I am now done putting up with this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Working through the issues in the appeal section.

In this edit, Bluewave makes a bold attempt at a number of changes. I'm going to list what I see as his edits below, and then suggest that we focus on exactly one of those points and see if we can find a change to the article that satisifes everyone.

1. Bluewave created subsections.
2. Bluewave added a number of qualifiers to statements
3. Bluewave shrunk a number of sections out.

I'd like to focus only on the sentence "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed its appeal against the leniency of Knox's and Sollecito's sentences." I think that Bluewave suggested "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed its appeal against what they regard as the leniency of Knox's and Sollecito's sentences." While I suspect Bluewave would admit his verbiage is slightly tortured (no offense intended, as my verbiage is very tortured), I think that the underlying point deserves discussion.

It appears to me that the key difference of opinion here is how much clarity needs to be given to statements of obvious opinion - like "Jane filed his appeal about the abject stupidity of John." - Obviously, the appeal states that John is abjectly stupid, and so the appeal is about said abject stupidity.

However, from an NPOV point of view, it can confuse the reader into thinking that we are stating as fact that John is abjectly stupid, when, actually, we are just describing the appeal.

Does this sum up the dispute well? Is there a way we could write this point to fix everyones problems? Off the top of my head, I would say that "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed an appeal, in which they argued that Knox's and Sollecito's sentences were too lienent." Now, before responding, I'd like people to review Consensus decision-making, which I am attempting to follow. Specifically, I feel that everyone discussed the item above and then I went ahead and formed a proposal, which I now present for consensus. You can either agree that the sentence should be changed to "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed an appeal, in which they argued that Knox's and Sollecito's sentences were too lienent," or you can raise a concern. If someone raises a concern, we'll go back to discussing. If there are no concerns, we've improved the article, and I'll move on to another sentence or section, or something. Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• No concern at all from my side.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• No concern from me either...and feel free to highlight my tortured prose :-) Bluewave (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) By the way, I think I may have done an identifiable fourth thing: extracting the apparently factual content from quotes and building it into the main text. That was a specific aim I had, and is something that people might regard as either good or bad. Maybe you include that under the "shrinking" heading, though. Bluewave (talk)
• I also agree. Akuram (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Fine by me, too. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Per the above and Zlykinskyja's 03:11, 21 April edit ("Since you asked, I have no problem with your proposed sentence."), I'd like someone to change "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed its appeal against the leniency of Knox's and Sollecito's sentences." to "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed an appeal, in which they argued that Knox's and Sollecito's sentences were too lienent." Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done, except for the typo :P — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Hipocrite: Thank you for your kind efforts to try to sort this out. But I had already made very clear to Bluewave that I am very tied up with a very important real world commitment and could not participate in detailed discussions for several days. Nevertheless, he started this dispute by removing the bulk of my work on the appeal, as usual, knowing that I would not have time to deal with this. Now, more of my time is wasted today when I am under the gun for time and can't participate. No matter how much I protest that BOTH sides of the story need to be included to make the story NPOV and non-defamatory, Bluewave and the other editors on here keep deleteing my work. It is not a reasonable situation in the least. I wish to add that this analysis of Bluewave's work as set forth above does not include all the points I raised about including the other side of the story and the overall impact on the article and on Amanda Knox's right to her good name (if she is innocent) when the information responding to these claims against her keeps getting deleted. That is all I can say for now. I am very tied up as I have said, and Bluewave well knew. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea behind trying to work through things an issue at a time is that it prevents you from being overwhelmed by a massive change. Do you have a thought on the one sentence change above? Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, I am getting very, very tired of your allegations in nearly every sentence you write here. You seem to feel the need to present yourself as some kind of arch avenger of Amanda Knox and everyone who does not agree with you is eventually the demonic enemy. I see that you are a hotspur and I agree that others here try to antagonise you royaly. But serioulsy, this is not the place for personal vendettas.

Therefore I will take part in this discussion again. First of all I would like to emphasise, that I hardly ever take part in discussions (I rather read and form an opinion for myself, which I infrequently ever see neccessary to blurt out) and I make even less edits in articles of Wikipedia. For example, this article has not been touched by me at all until now. Having said that, I feel the strong need to point out to you, that you apparently don't seem to grasp the simpliest of all principles in NPOV. NPOV can never reached by including your opinion! If you feel that the article is biased in a way which you cannot accept, it will not be reverted by including a biased statement, opinion or a personally visualisation of the events of the other side of the story. In fact, it makes it worse! I ask you to keep this in mind from now on. This article does not need the "other side of the story". It just simply doesn't need any side of the story! (I for example don't care at all if Knox is guilty or not at the end. I just care about an interesting article, which should definately find its place on Wikipedia, if kept neutral. I have no stakes in either "side"!)

This article should only be about reported facts. No opinions from you, me, other editors, the press or any other not involved party. That includes in my view the opinions of the Knox family as well as friends from Kercher and people who think Knox/Sollecito are guilty/innoncent, regardless of their prominence. Only if we all keep this in mind, will we ever reach NPOV. In recent years it has come to some dubious understanding, that inserting quotes and press sources makes an article more reliable and more true. Well, unfortunately the press is in a lot of cases just as clueless as anyone else. Therefore including sources is a dangerous thing. Especially if these sources only "specialise" on one aspect/side and follow their own agenda. As I understand, it is very promising for the US media to highlight and impose facts, that support Knoxs innocence. You said it yourself, that you write especially for the US side, which sees things very different from the Italian/English side. Therefore it makes your "side of the story" not more reliable, if you always back it up with these kind of sources. All you achieve is a biased side of the article which for sure provokes someone from "the other side" to write something just as biased or delete your edits. You see what I am getting at? Ultimately we will never reach NPOV.

This article is in my humble opinion already too blown out and because of two higly oppositional sides contains more quotes, than a book about the war of the roses. Hippocrite has suggested we use WP:BRD until and during the time of mediation. Even though I rather would not contradict him, I suggest we use the policy of NO EDITS AT ALL until mediation is finished. The article is already significantly different from the version we agreed to have the mediation about and you suggested, that because of recent events, it needs to be updated. Well, I say clearly NO to this. Wikipedia articles are no newspaper and they are no internet blogs either. The article, if the status quo is kept for now, will still present a lot of knowledge, even so we do not update it hourly. Mediation has been scheduled for the 30.04.2010 if I am not mistaken, so I ask everyone (not just you) participating in this article to stop editing until then, because evidently WP:BRD ist not working here at all.

The little help Hippocrite has already tried to give is very promising and I trust, if we keep to his way of sorting things out, we will come to some kind of compromise we all can agree on. I will try to participate more in this discussion in order to help to get to this compromise Akuram (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Akuram, I could only scan your dribble but I took note of all the insults and personal attacks. You acknowledge the harassment by Salvio, Bluewave and The Magnificent Clean-Keeper--- "I agree that others here try to antagonise you royaly"---then you essentially condone it. That is so utterly ridiculous. After today's reverting harassment, attempts to have me blocked, deletion of 20-30 of my edits, I am not willing to put up with this any longer. This is clearly a gang up situation intended to allow only one side of the story--that Amanda Knox slit her roomate's throat--although not one of you know for a fact that is true. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an effort to convince the public of a defendant's guilt before a court has finally determined that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please review the very simple one sentence change above and comment on it? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrit, sorry for the delay, but I got tied up after some of the pro-guilt editors tried yet again to get me blocked or banned. This is why I get discouraged and can't accept the fantasy that they are acting in good faith. Good faith does not mean continuously trying to get another editor blocked or banned and constantly reverting and deleting (as a team) a solo editor's work to provoke an edit war, and allowing only pro-guilt edits to be made. It is just more of the endless harassment. It is not a coincidence that I am the only non-pro-guilt editor left on this article. I just don't see any hope that this can be worked out. Since you asked, I have no problem with your proposed sentence. But tomorrow I cannot be here at all due to prior commitments, as I already noted. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, whats the point then? If you won't read, what other people have to say, but the little you "scan" is "dribble" in your eyes, than I start to understand the opposition against you. As I have said above, but you obviously didn't scan that, is, that I simply don't care, if Knox/Sollecito are guilty or innocent. So, I am not one from the "pro-guilt" side, nor am I on the "pro-innocent" side. I solely care about NPOV! Akuram (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION SOUGHT ON BREAKING NEWS REPORT

Blatent vandalism by IP address Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There needs to be an explanation for what is going on. Is this true or a hoax? I have no idea. I can find no information on other sites, except for someone on one site saying she is crying over what she read here. Please clarify ASAP. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) There are e-mails flying around about this and much confusion. Someone needs to step up ASAp and explain whether this is a hoax or is actual tragic news. Zlykinskyja (talk) Can Salvio tell us ASAP whether it is true this is being reported in Italy.Zlykinskyja (talk) Stop deleting my request for a clarification. Wikipedia put news out there and now people are upset and tuning in here for information. If this is a hoax, then they should see the notice when they click on here that the information may not be true. It is bad enough to put that kind of news out there if not true, but worse to keep people wondering and not clarify it. That is just too cruel. Enough with this vicious harassment. Zlykinskyja (talk) Zlykinskyja, It looks as though IP 81.154.56.189 was the one that initially put the hoax in .. I'm sure that can be research quite quickly. Jonathan (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC) THERE WAS A MALICIOUS "BREAKING NEWS REPORT" ON THE ARTICLE FOR TWO HOURS THAT MS. KNOX COMMITTED SUICIDE. THIS HOAX CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF DISTRESS. I HAVE POSTED A CLARIFICATION SO THAT PEOPLE CLICKING ON HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION WILL SEE THAT IT WAS NOT TRUE. PLEASE STOP DELETING THIS CLARIFICATION SO THAT THESE VICIOUS RUMORS CAN BE STOPPED. WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR WHAT FALSE NEWS IT HAS PUT OUT THERE. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC) There was an IP-vandal edit which happens all the time and it has been reverted. End of story.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Adding a banner, or any response other than deletion and a warning on the editors talk page will simply encourage vandalism.Footwarrior (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Time-out Putting a big bold breaking news headline is completely inappropriate. I'm protecting the article for 24 hours to let tempers cool and avoid complicating the ongoing mediation with further 3RR issues. Note that this is not taking any stand on the status of anything else in the article, and if a clarification is deemed to be required on the hoax, feel free to propose one with appropriate wording and sourcing. MLauba (Talk) 01:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC) FALSE POSTING AS "BREAKING NEWS" OF THE SUICIDE OF AMANDA KNOX This is a copy of the notice that was posted at the top of the article for two hours, in bold lettering: Breaking News 21st April 2010 at 22:37 GMT - Reports of the death of Amanda Knox in Jail via apparant suicide This is yet to be confrimed by Italian police but several reports are filtering in. The information was totally false and malicious. I can't think of anything more malicious than to post on the Internet that a young girl in a foreign prison had committed suicide. The "breaking news report" was left on this article for all the world to see for two hours, and many readers probably believed it was true, as I did initially. Not one person involved in this article took any steps to remove the information during those two hours. Then, when I attempted to post a clarification, the Magnificent Clean-Keeper immediately removed it. Why did not one person on this article remove the notice that Amanda Knox committed suicide, but instead instantly removed my attempted notice that it was incorrect information? Then Salvio attempted to get me blocked or banned for trying to post a clarification that it was not true information. The behavior on this article just gets worse and worse. Really, how low can people go. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is going on with this article. I certainly hope that no relative or close friend had a heart attack or stroke or suffered too much after learning from Wikipedia that Amanda had "committed suicide." The false information was reported as fact on the Newsweek website, using Wikipedia as a source: Amanda Knox on Newsweek Read about Amanda Knox at Newsweek. ... 2010 at 22:37 GMT - Reports of the death of Amanda Knox in Jail via apparant suicide This is yet to be confrimed by Italian police but several reports are filtering in. Read More»From Wikipedia ... topics.newsweek.com/amanda-knox.htm - Similar The deletion of the notice that the information was incorrect was, in my opinion, highly malicious and inexcusable given the nature of the false report. Retractions are ALWAYS necessary and appropriate under such circumstances. I can think of no justification for not issuing a retraction or clarification. Furthermore, I did ask an adminsitrator to post a clarification or retraction, I did that on the administrator's noticeboard where Salvio was seeking to get me banned or blocked for trying to post a notice of clarification. But that request for a clarification was ignored. Salvio paints me as the wrongdoer for trying to post a clarification, BUT NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT THE PERSON WHO FALSELY POSTED A NOTICE THAT AMANDA KNOX COMMITTED SUICIDE. This is like "Alice Through The Looking Glass"--a little world where everything is backwards. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC) It sure is interesting that the guy who started the "edit war" by removing my notice that the suicide report was false just signed up today and was welcomed by Salvio. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC) So this guy signs up today just to revert my notice of clarification that the suicide report was wrong! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mpike0424 Incredible. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see his account was created just one minute before his first revert. That about says it all. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Hmmm. Looking at the timing and sequence of events on some of the accounts involved, things do not look legitimate at all, and I will pursue this fully. There is much more to this story than just a random troll. 03:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC) What point are you verbosely trying to make? Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Locking the article I think there is a case for putting some sort of longer-term block on editing the article until mediation is completed. Fortunately I missed yesterday's fiasco, but it looks like it resulted in a flurry of edits to the article, over 30 edits to this talk page, plus a 3RR case and and edits to users' talk pages. The only outcome was the reversion of one piece of malicious vandalism. Since Hipocrite started the request for opening statements by participants in the mediation, on 16 April, there have been nearly 100 edits to the article and it doesn't look any better for it. If all that effort had gone into mediation, we might have made some real progress: as it is, the mediation seems to be taking a back seat, while the business-as-usual of edit-warring goes on. I think the harsh reality for us (me included) is that we are making no progress with improving the article and we would be much better employed focusing on the mediation. However, while we are unhappy with the article (me included), there is a great temptation to edit. Putting a lock on the article would force us (me included) to focus on the priority—the mediation (and I'm also including Hipocrite's work on getting us to agree the appeals section, when I talk of mediation). Bluewave (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC) At present, absent immediate vandalism, locking down the article pending mediation is something I gave consideration when putting the lock in place. However, the mediator's advice and proposed proceedings (BRD remains a sound approach overall to avoid essentially locking down the article indefinitely - there is simply no stable version that can be readily identified at the present stage to revert to, and it also hampers any good faith efforts to fix several of the article's defects. The 1 day protection was intended as a measure to avoid that parties to the mediation shoot themselves in the foot over an emotional situation, a temporary measure that can be re-conducted as required whenever tempers flare. A case for long-term semi-protection seems a bit stronger considering the high profile nature of the article, and that its disputed state makes it a magnet for drive-by vandalism. That being said, I strongly urge all parties to: Concentrate on factual comments and refrain from any direct or indirect characterization of the actions of any other party to the mediation Put all past offenses and slights, real or perceived, behind them, resume assuming good faith no matter what happened in the past and stick, strictly, to that position during the course of the mediation Extend WP:AGF to any contributor that isn't clear and obvious vandalism, regardless of the age of an account or whether it is been made by a named or IP account Refrain from the impulse to immediately replicate any news story pertaining to the case as it gets published, which should help putting these into a broader perspective. I have watchlisted this article, and while I intend to take no administrative action that is susceptible to hinder mediation, I do intend to enforce WP:NPA strictly going forward, and without further warnings. MLauba (Talk) 11:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Fair enough! On re-reading my comment, I'm really saying we should put our effort into the mediation rather than futile edits to the article. It should be within our own power to do that, without having to ask you to lock the article (but sometimes an alcohol has to ask someone else to lock up the whisky!) Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I no longer have faith that this article can be editied in a reasonable manner. I think what happened yesterday was atrocious. I know that when I saw the notice of Amanda's suicide I was distraught. It just struck me as so sad that this poor girl who has been so horribly attacked in the media, including on here, would give up and kill herself. I felt very sorry for her family. I don't see what happened as a minor matter at all, nor something that should just be brushed under the rug. There should indeed be action taken against anyone involved in this fiasco. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In regards to IP vandalism

This edit was blatent IP vandalism. High profile articles are frequently attacked by vandals who announce the death of (in)famous people. I agree that it is a very big deal - a major failing of wikipedia generally. When this article comes off full-protection, I will ask a friendly admin to semi-protect it indefinetly to prevent this from happening again.

However, per WP:RBI, when IP addresses try to rile us up by vandalizing articles, the correct response is to revert their changes, find an admin to block them, and ignore them. Please don't let them get under your skin - that's their goal! I know it's hard when an IP address does something as blatently offensive as this recent episode, but you have to try. Let's try to put this recent episode in the past - next time, however, I'll take every action I can to not only have the IP blocked for a long period of time, but also to souse out if they have an alternate account here, so that it can be blocked for a long time also. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no one will take any action to address this, and this false report was put out on Newsweek and the Internet, I will try to do so. Accordingly, I ask that the discussion be restored. It is not appropriate to delete that discussion of the false report of the suicide of Amanda Knox at this time since the matter if far from resolved in my opinion. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted. Click the "show" button if you want to read the old discussion. There's nothing that can be done to right old wrongs here. The false report was not "put" on Newsweek - they merely mirror our content. What exactly do you want done, in your ideal world, to deal with the IP vandalism? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, Zlykinskyja, this might be a good time to remind anyone whom you think was seriously offended by the recent vandalism what Wikipedia Is Not. WP:NOT#JOURNALISM Jonathan (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Next proposed change

I'd like to ask someone to propose a concrete change that we can evaluate to determine how to make the article better. Please make sure your proposed change is small in scale and easy to digest - a total rewrite of a section, for instance, is a bit too much to tackle right now. Given that the last proposed change germinated from Bluewave, I'd ask that the next change be proposed by a different participant. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have said numerous times that I cannot participate at this time. How can consensus be reached if BOTH sides of the dispute cannot participate? Given what just happened on this article, I think this article should be locked until mediation starts. I note that someone has added back in the statement in the lede that Amanda Knox did in fact kill Kercher. It is simply ridiculous to have that in an encyclopedia. Locking till mediation starts is the appropriate thing to do at this time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears you've suggested our next change! What sentence is it that you have a problem with, and what would you like it changed to? Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the discussion about the false suicide report. It is not reasonable at all that that information should be deleted, while NO action has been taken to address the matter. I don't agree that "next time" something should be done. This was reported on Newsweek. That is outrageous. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am taking action to adress the matter. when protection falls off, new and unregistered accounts will be unable to edit the article. Where is this reportecd on Newsweek? What sentence is it that you have a problem with, and what would you like it changed to? Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have said over and over that I cannot participate until April 30. I explained about Newsweek in the section that you deleted. If none of the administrators will look into this matter of the false suicide report, then I will have to do it even though I do not have any time at all to do it. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RE Newsweek - they just mirror our content. Again, it will not happen again after protection comes off because the article will be locked to new and unregistered contributors. Hipocrite (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is being looked into. You can either trust that I'm taking all possible steps to do so, or not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it is about this edit which was already removed ones by Bluewave and should go in my opinion, too.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have Zlykinskyja define her own proposal. If she can't do so untill tommorow, there's no deadline. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note that protection has been downgraded to semi, under the assumption that none of the parties will re-engage in edit warring immediately. I wish you all a productive mediation. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if Zlykinskyja is not proposing this change of the sentence, then I will propose it. This is clearly not NPOV, it's not finally proven and is only intended to aggravate certain people, which are fired up enough already as it is. Please can we all agree that this part of the sentence should be taken out? -> [5] Thank you! Akuram (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from a BLP point of view, I think Akuram has a point that we should remove it anyway. It is a defamatory statement and I think our duty to remove defamatory material exceeds even our duty to focus on the mediation. Bluewave (talk)

(undent) Ok, I interpret that as broad agreement to remove that text and have done so. I await Zlykinskyja's proposal. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Something I would like to see deleted in this language: "one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise."[218] This language is at the bottom of the Media section.

The reason why I think this language should be removed is that it gives the impression to the reader that Amanda's lawyer agreed with the outcome of the trial. Clearly, he did not agree, since he just filed an appeal that is hundreds of pages long and is described by his co-counsel as a "total repudiation" of the trial. The language I challenge is likely taken out of context or is an error or is at least confusing. Since the language does not add to the accuracy of the article, but rather gives a misleading or confusing impression, I think it should be removed. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A more serious problem is the paragraph starts with "Just after the guilty verdict" The referenced article with the lawyers statement is dated 3 December, before the verdict was issued. Footwarrior (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Great catch! Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Albeit I agree on removing the "Just after the guilty verdict" part, I'm against removing the statement itself altogether: it is sourced and it was not retracted. To think that it was a misquotation or something else seems like WP:OR to me. So, the quote should stay, unrless a reliable source can be cited that supports the view that Dalla Vedova actually said something else. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, you and others delete my well sourced information all the time. The standard usually employed does not seem to be whether the information is "sourced". If that were the case, many of my sentences would not have been deleted. This disputed statement adds nothing of value to the accuracy of the article. It does not represent what Amanda's lawyers believe. It misleads and confuses the readers. It cannot be reasonably argued that Amanda's lawyers agree with the trial, so this information should not be in the article. This is similar to the other situation where someone included a statement from an Italian newspaper that Amanda agreed with the trial, to create the false impression that she was admitting her guilt. Since this disputed language does nothing but create a false impression, it should be removed. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the quote in the article, but replace "Just after the guilty verdict" with "Before the guilty verdict was announced" to make it clear that the lawyers comments do not apply to the verdict. Footwarrior (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What does the comment add to the accuracy of the article? Nothing. Amanda's lawyers do not agree with the trial. Thus, the language is misleading. What purpose does it serve to include misleading language in the article? It is the job of the editors to clarify the material, not just include any language that is connected with the story, whether accurate or not accurate. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If Amanda's lawyers have said they believe the trial is fair, that does not mean that they agree with the verdict. But, if they have said the trial is fair, we have to decide if that is notable...and I'd say it is (but I agree it should be set in the context that Footwarrior suggests). We also need decide whether the source is sufficiently reliable...and on balance, I'd say yes. So, I'd go along with Footwarrior's proposal. Bluewave (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So include language whether it really reflects the views of her lawyers or not? It is splitting hairs to say the lawyers think the trial was "fair", yet disagree with the verdict. How is such a thing even possible? This is not something I have ever heard of before. How do you reconcile this language with the complete repudiation of the trial filed by her lawyers last week? They rejected the whole thing in the hundreds of pages they filed last week. I don't see how a lawyer can in good conscience file hundreds of pages repudiating a trial that he thinks is "fair". In the US, he could face sanctions for that. How is it consistent with NPOV to include language that clearly does not accurately reflect the views of her lawyers, yet at the same time trying to delete most of the section on the appeal, which DOES accurately reflect the views of her lawyers. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You can launch an appeal against a verdict without claiming it was an unfair trial. An unfair trial means that it has been conducted wrongly or that the media has impacted on the jury etc. It does not mean that the evidence submitted was all correct (which is what the appeal is about). The appeal and the statement do not contradict each other. Quantpole (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. An unfair trial is not so narrowly defined. It is a general term meaning that an unjust result was reached for any number of reasons, including the reasons set forth in the appeal, such as violation of the right to counsel, unfair interrogation tactics, coerced confession, flawed evidence collection, denial of the introduction of additional evidence on the DNA, and in general a trial so flawed that it was unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. You are conflicting different things - how the trial is conducted and how the evidence was obtained. Just because the defense lawyer said he thought the trial was fair does not mean he accepts that the evidence was correct. Quantpole (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not continuing this discussion because you are way off the mark. See my comment above which references issues that are quintessential "right to a fair trial" issues.16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, let me bracket this problem so you can all stop talking at eachother and instead talk to eachother. It appears there is broad consensus that the current article is innacurate. I've fixed that. The second issue is if this should be included at all, and if it is included, how to do that. Could someone who favors inclusion please detail a specific edit that they suggest would improve the article? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK speaking as an "inclusionist", I would say that this paragraph is part of the section on press coverage, so we should more clearly show it as an example of the range of views portrayed in that coverage. My proposal would be to replace;

Just before the guilty verdict, the New York Times reported, "Ms. Knox is often portrayed as an innocent girl unwittingly caught up in the Kafkesque Italian justice system. But even one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise."

with:

The fairness of the trial was a subject of press speculation. For example, before the guilty verdict was announced, the New York Times reported, "Ms. Knox is often portrayed as an innocent girl unwittingly caught up in the Kafkesque Italian justice system. But even one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he disagreed with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise."

Would that do for a specific edit? Bluewave (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It would. Without personally taking a position (I'm just asking leading questions, I swear), do you feel that's balanced? Is there a notable opinion that the trial was not fair (aside from the opinion of the lawyers representing the accused, which we can discuss later?) Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: No, because Carlo Dalla Vedova does not believe that the trial was fair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(To Hipocrite's point) I think that an even better improvement would be a longer paragraph, drawing in material from a couple of other places in the article, and giving a balanced section about the different press views on the fairness of the trial. I'm not going to have time to do that now, so I leave it to anyone else to come up with a better proposal or, if no-one does, I'll try again when I'm next logged in. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that would be more productive than fiddling around with this on the margin. I look forward to working with everyone to help create a real paragraph about varing opiinons of the fairness of the trial. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not about the press views. It is about including a false report that Amanda's lawyer thinks the trial was fair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the NYT has him quoted as saying the trial was fair. In other court papers, of course, he finds fault with aspects of the trial. We should use his other quotes to clarify his first quote. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, yes there is a notable opinion that the trial was unfair. The opinion of her lawyers is that the trial was unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a clear source for this. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I should make a general statement - I think it would be wise to take pronouncements by lawyers in cases with a huge grain of salt - their statements are statements of advocates, designed not to be truthful per se, but rather to advance the interests of their clients and not be false. I can see how a lawyer would want to say a trial was fair before a jury decides ("How dare you accuse us, the jury, of being unable to deal with this case! I rule against your client!") and then unfair after the ruling, as that's also in the interest of the client. I am very hesitant to use quotes by lawyers for this reason, and I would ask that editors here strongly consider dramatically shrinking the various quotemines. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So, are you saying that the disputed quote by Amanda's lawyer should not be included? Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I say what I mean and I mean what I say. "I am very hesitant to use quotes by lawyers for this reason, and I would ask that editors here strongly consider dramatically shrinking the various quotemines." Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: In answer to your question, which you have now changed: Yes, I speak English. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you asking me if I'm saying things I didn't say? Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out what you are saying. Can you clarify that when you say lawyers are not truthful and their quotes should not be used, that your view applies as well to the disputed quote that I am seeking to have removed? If not, why not? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

When lawyers say things like "I love america, god, and apple pie," they're not saying it because they love america, god and apple pie, they are saying it because they want the audience to hear them say it. It is problematic to use quotes from lawyers to divine what they actually think about something, as they have conflicting motives. This includes every quote from a lawyer. Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you have made it clear that you fundamentally distrust lawyers. Does that distrust also apply to the statements of the prosecutors who are also lawyers? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to rephrase the same thing? When lawyers say something, they are saying it with a goal. It is not necessarily their opinion, or true. Hipocrite (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

But does this distrust apply to prosecutors, and prosecutors acting as investigators, who are also lawyers? And if so, shouldn't the views of the prosecutors and prosecutors acting as investigators also be removed? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to rephrase the same thing? When lawyers say something, they are saying it with a goal. It is not necessarily their opinion, or true. Please don't assume that I am saying you should remove something, just that statements by lawyers should be looked at with a very skeptical eye. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I keep asking because you won't answer my question. So I will ask again. Does this distrust you have of lawyers apply also to prosecutors and to prosecutors acting as investigators, such as in this case? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "prosecutors acting as investigators" means, so I'm just going to say that lawyers advocate for their clients, and statements they make are designed to win, not to advance truth. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it is lawyers who advocate for their "clients", meaning defense attorneys, that you think are untruthful. I get where you are coming from now. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Prosecutors are advocates for guilty verdicts. I don't excempt them at all. Please try to avoid shoving words into my mouth. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you refused to answer the question directly. So if you think that all lawyers are untrustworthy and their statements and views are not reliable, I don't see how this article can be written. This article going forward through the appeals process just now starting will be largely about the views of the prosecutors vs. the views of the defense attorneys. If what they say is inherently not believable then whose views should be included in the story? Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the appeal court will focus on the evidence presented by both sides, rather than their opinions. I hope we will do the same. Bluewave (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, until the judicial process is finalized, which could take a few years, all aspects of this case are just opinions. The prosecutor claims Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith. The defense laywers say they were not there that night. Both are opinions. Hipocrite says the lawyers opinions are not trustworthy and should not be included. I have a problem with this because the essence of this article is opinion, until the process is completed in a couple of years. By discounting what the lawyers have to say, to the point of advocating that they not be quoted because they are so dishonest, the end result will not be an NPOV article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also reject this notion that lawyers are untrustworthy. Most lawyers are honest and ethical. When the lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele express their views, those views should be treated in the article the same as an expert opinion, in the sense that those opinions should be given great weight in the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo caption

So what if Meredith went to nightclubs partied and had fun, lots of people do, it is irrelevent to this article. The hidden note reads thus- text required for FAIR-USE restriction - DO NOT REMOVE AGAIN without prior consensus where is this policy written down? No other article I have come across on wikipedia with fair use images requires that the fair use criteria to be placed in article space, most are content to leave that to the image file description. Can you please direct me to where this policy is written down so I can amend my editing if need be and to help correct those articles which have failed to adhere to this policy.KTo288 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

However since the author of that note writes about consensus, a spot poll as to what that consensus is.

Remove or amend caption

• RemoveKTo288 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Remove; I already removed it on grounds that it is frivolous, but he reverted my edit. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Remove. The caption, if any, should be appropriate to the use of the picture in the context of the article, not concocted to try and meet fair use criteria. Knox's smile and Sollecito's supposed similarity to Harry Potter are not major themes of the article. I think the pictures improve the article but I fear they don't truly meet Wikipedia's quite strict criteria for non-free images. But I don't think we should be inventing captions that are not justified by the article, just to try and keep them. Bluewave (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Remove. The comment is out of place on this photo. There is no need to clutter up the infobox with this kind of statement. Footwarrior (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Indifferent. He put this because he thinks that it will give the image a valid rationale and prevent deletion, which I somehow doubt. In any case, one of two things will happen: Either the image is deleted, in which case this is a moot point. Or the image is kept, at which point it has fulfilled its "function". Just my two cents. Averell (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Caption discussion

I have looked at the licensing for that image, and cannot see any reason that a specific caption is required to preserve licensing. Could someone explain that?   pablo_hablo. 11:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that someone has proposed deleting the photo, claiming it's under copyright. Footwarrior (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Pablo, where does one go to read the licensing on a photo? Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Click on the photo, it'll take you to File:Meredith-Kercher.jpg.   pablo_hablo. 16:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the change I have just made to the caption of the Lead section photo (the one showing Meredith Kercher dancing at a nightclub) is acceptable to the majority. The previous caption seemed to be implying that Kercher had an unusually great interest in nightclubbing, an assertion that should have been sourced.     ←   ZScarpia   12:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets Discuss all the Photos

It seems that the discussion on the other photos was not noted on the article or Talk page. There should have been a notice on this Talk page so that we could discuss the photos before they were deleted. Can someone please restore the two photos that were deleted so that we can look at them and have a discussion on ALL of the photos at the same time? I don't see the logic or neutrality of allowing a photo of the victim but not a photo of Raffaele, a defendant. Having photos of the defendants adds a lot to the story, just as does having a photo of the victim.Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There was presumably a discussion about the deletion of the other images. It would have been linked on the relevant images' description pages either on Wikipedia or at Commons, depending where the files were stored.   pablo_hablo. 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking through policy, the difference is that the two other people involved are still alive and as such a free image is more possible to create than one of Kercher, per WP:NFCC#1. Having said that I am not totally convinced that the one of Kercher is necessary either. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As I'm about to say here, I think that to have Kercher's photo in the article helps to give a face to the victim, thereby making her a real person — who was viciously murdered —. But I'm not a strong supporter of keeping the image, so make it some sort of a weak keep. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the pictures are free. The discussion all hinges on whether there is justification for keeping them in terms of 'fair use'. Personally, I would like to include them all (with appropriate captions!) but my view is irrelevant to the discussion about whether they should be deleted. Bluewave (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I've put these up for deletion is because they are not free (copyrighted) and they aren't absolutely necessary. If they were free, I'd be more than happy to have all of them. If they can be replaced in any way (either by text or by free images) they must go. So it's somewhat useless to have a discussion on wether we'd like to have them or not. Also, the already deleted images will not be restored unless someone convinces the deleting admin, or, failing that, to put them up for a deletion review. Re-uploaded images can be speedily deleted without discussion. Averell (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate photos in Wikipedia articles, Averell is correct. If don't have permission to use the images, they must be deleted. Footwarrior (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, permission is not always required. If there is Fair Use, there is no copyright violation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. But Fair Use doesn't mean that it can automatically go into Wikipedia. To be allowed here, it must be Fair Use and the criteria in WP:NFCC must all be fulfilled. Averell (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Image of Sollecito

I've noticed that this image box is back - without an image, just an external link. So we're left with a somewhat pointless caption, and no picture. I cannot see that it is the slightest bit relevant whether Knox thought he resembled Harry Potter, Dennis Potter, Harry Ramsden or Hare Krishna. What is the point of this orphaned caption?   pablo_hablo. 15:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no point, other than that an available photo of him might be found. In the meantime, I don't see a problem with deleting it.

Seems that the idea is, instead of including the images directly, to include an image box with a direct link to an external image. While this isn't against any non-free policy, it is plain weird. As I've argued before, the images are simply not that important. Plus, if you really want to know what the people look like - there are about 200 external links here, most of which have pictures on it. Heck, we could even note that on on some of the external links. I'd have deleted those boxes outright, but for the sake of mediation I just propose it here. Averell (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the captions and links to external files for three photos. An external link should not be used in place of a valid image.   pablo_hablo. 19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Washing machine

The source for "The washing machine was found to be on final cycle with Kercher's clothes inside" is a newspaper report of a rumor. The words "Sources say" in the referenced article make this rather clear. I have been unable to find a mention of the washing machine in the Massei report or a reliable source for testimony at the trial. Given this, it clearly shouldn't be mentioned as a fact in this section of the Wikipedia article. But it might belong in a list of rumors in a section on pretrial publicity or media reports.Footwarrior (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you phrase this as a specific proposed edit, as Hipocrite has been encouraging us to do. Then everyone interested can agree or not....but please, please don't propose a list of rumors :-) Bluewave (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Footwarrior-I agree that if it is just a rumor it should not be in the article. If you find other rumors, those should be removed as well. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My proposed edit is to remove the entire sentence that starts with "The washing machine was found to be on final cycle". Footwarrior (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If it was just a rumor, I agree too. I think we should remove anything that looks like media rumours and speculation. There is a believable citation from the Grauniad that the machine was still warm and filled with Meredith's clothes, when Filomena arrived[6] but I can't find anything about the "final cycle" that is believable. Bluewave (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor change

I've tweaked the lead because it read like it was a confirmed fact about the DNA evidence and the new witness. I think the lead could be cut down, actually; it's somewhat long and rambling for a lead section. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the detail about the appeals should have been added to the lead without discussion, when we are embarking on mediation. The lead includes no detail about the evidence presented in the original trial, so I don't think we should mention the challenging of that evidence when we mention the appeal. If we mention that the defendants are appealing we should also mention that the prosecution are appealing. If we say there is a presumption of innocence for Knox and Sollecito, we should also mention that there is the same presumption for Guede until his appeals have been exhahausted. Bluewave (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree; I'd chop the entire appeals section out of the lead, at least until it's completed. Otherwise we're leaning a little towards WP:NOT#NEWS and this after all is "Murder of Meredith Kercher", not "List of the entire judicial process related to this case". Black Kite (t) (c) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be fundamentally unfair and defamatory to paint Amanda and Raffaele as guilty, when that is not the case at this point. We have been over this and over this and over this and over this. It is indeed frustrating. They are not guilty at this point. Quite the contrary, at this point they are presumed innocent. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about guilt or otherwise? We are talking about cutting the lead down so that it concentrates on the main facts of the article, without confusing the reader with too much detail per WP:LEAD. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you don't undertand the procedural posture of this case. At this point as a matter of law in both Italy and the US they are presumed innocent because they have an appeal pending. There will be a second trial at which they stand a strong chance of being acquitted. To state that they have been convicted, but to remove the additional information explaining the procedural posture, would be misleading, defamatory and unfair. If you want to cut things down, try deleting some of the excessive gory details in the lead, which could be included elsewhere. All that is needed to explain the crime is that Meredith was stabbed and assaulted and that the crime scene reflected a violent struggle. But to remove all the information explaining the true procedural posture makes the article misleading.23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No-one is talking about removing information; merely that it doesn't all need to appear in the lead section. One can mention the fact that there is an appeal currently ongoing in a single sentence. Any detail required can appear in the section about the trial and appeals. That's the point of WP:LEAD. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the information that Amanda and Raffaele were "convicted" needs to also be removed from the lead, since to state that they were found guilty, without clarifying that they are still innocent is far from neutral.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Over and over there is this constant push to try to have the article give the impression that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. It is extremely discouraging the way NPOV is ignored in this article. Presenting them as found guilty in the lead is NOT NPOV, and it isn't even true. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

They were convicted of the crime. It is impossible not to mention that fact in the article; it doesn't stop us from mentioning that Italian law presumes innocence until the appeals process is exhausted. We can only report facts; we are not here to write news articles or to make presumptions about guilt or innocence. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

NO. They do not stand convicted of a crime. We have been over this and over this for hours and hours repeatedly. They are presumed innocent at this time. That is the state of the law at this point. To state otherwise is incorrect, false and defamatory. They are still presumed innocent. How many hours do we have to spend on this same point. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a very big problem with wording that creates the false impression in the "lead" that Amanda and Raffaele are deemed guilty of this horrendous, sick crime. Since we have already spent hours on this same point, I suggest leaving the information that clarifies their status in the lead, or if not, then remove the information which gives the misleading impression that their guilt has already been determined. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Being (a) convicted of a crime, and (b) the fact that their legal status is currently presumed innocent until the appeals process ends are not mutually exclusive; they are both facts. "Being convicted" and "Being guilty" are not the same thing. Read Salvio's posting much further up the page. It also appears clear from your emotive language that you aren't capable of taking a neutral viewpoint on this issue, and so I don't see much point in trying to continue this conversation. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)