Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Open Letter

This blog post likely deserves some attention. My interest is simply in making sure that this entry accurately reflects what reliable sources have said and that no reliable sources are omitted based on anyone's agenda in either direction. I'm posting this notice on the BLP noticeboard and the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article should reflect reliable sources. But a blog post? One on a site which perhaps less than neutrally describes itself as ‘INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA: THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF AMANDA KNOX & RAFFAELE SOLLECITO’? And a post to such a blog which, when you click on the list of signatories, advertises ‘Zoosk: World’s greatest dating site’? Surely the kind of stuff an encyclopedia should turn up its nose at, rather than waste its time over. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider it our greatest honorable trait that we are always willing to take another look, always willing to review our work, and always willing to accept criticism. The post raises several quite straightforward objections that deserve to be answered with real answers, not jeers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but exactly which objections require real answers? As for jeers, how about their ‘mostly European’? Ian Spackman (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That a critic doesn't live up to our standards is not our concern. We can and should rise above that. One concern that I have is the claim that reliable sources that indicate reasons why one might be skeptical about the verdict in Amanda Knox' case have been systematically omitted from the article. I do not know yet if that claim is true, I merely point out that we should always be willing to explore such concerns thoughtfully. Another concern is whether or not our citations accurately reflect underlying sources. There is never a reason not to reassess such things, and to bring in more eyes to make an evaluation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic has been the subject to innumerable blog wars since the murder occurred, and many people in the blogosphere have tried to influence the Wikipedia article to match their beliefs. I'm a bit shocked that Jimbo would link to a piece that would be immediately deleted as an attack page and severe violation of WP:BLP if it were reproduced here verbatim. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The blog post raises legitimate objections. "Legitimate" in the sense of being the kind of objections that deserve to be taken seriously, not necessarily objections that we would agree with upon closer investigation. I'd love to see people here addressing those objections rather than attacking the blogpost.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, there's 27 Archive pages here. Do your own research. You will quickly note that nothing in that petition is new or hasn't been brought up here before, including the attacks on various editors who do not share the point of view expressed in the blog. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am doing my own research, and it doesn't look good. I see editors being blocked for single edits that are absolutely defensible on the thinnest of grounds. That's not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that was true at one time, but more recently editors who come in here looking to make changes which they believe will be more neutral but which the small and dedicated group of page watchers feel is too pro-Knox, the attacks all seem focused on the new editors. This post even has hints of it.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I should be blamed partly. I brought this blogpost ( came up on my wikipedia google alert) to attention of Jimbo. Neither of us are aware of the context and history of the article or subject. But innocently thought it may bring the attention of subject matter experts on this -- Tinu Cherian - 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A search on ANI , BLPN or NPOVN for Amanada Knox or Murder of Meredith Kercher will turn out a massive amount of prior discussions, with much on user conduct. A common thread however is that comments on content by uninvolved parties always express surprise that the article actually is neutral. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors interested in some of the back history can study Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher for a small snapshot sample of what this is all about. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• An internet petition with all of 60 signatures? Hmm, I am not seeing the compelling need for the founder to get involved here... --John (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The petition was followed by talk-page requests, as signs of growing concern among active editors, and there were over 215 signatures 3 days later. They were just requests, as a matter to check on the situation. -Wikid77 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• • A petition doesn't matter. Number of signatures doesn't matter. Getting it right is all that matters. I accept input from all kinds of sources, and we should always be willing to take another look.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This post cannot be used because it is not a Reliable Source for anything at all. I agree that the article should be edited "correctly", but that means we should follow WP policy and get reliable sources to back up specific suggestions on how to change the article.LedRush (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No one, least of all me, is arguing that the blog post should be used as a source. The blog post is a discussion of what has been going on here. It should be thoughtfully considered. Is it true that people have been banned for completely neutral edits? Yes. It is true that reliable sources have been systematically excluded? Yes. None of that is acceptable. I am not arguing for reinstating any of the badly behaved accounts from before - they are irrelevant to this discussion. My point is that badly behaved accounts are no excuse for bias.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Wales, I have been told this is not the place for the discussion so I apologize if I am out of line posting here. I am hopeful that you will take a moment to explain to me why Wikipedia refuses to allow a page for Amanda Knox. Her case is one of the biggest news stories of the decade. The explanations I have received have come from the group currently controlling this article. I feel their opinions are heavily biased. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Do you personally feel that a page detailing a major news story, such as the Amanda Knox case, should be forcefully ignored by Wikipedia? BruceFisher (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article is inaccurate and incomplete. Many credible sources have been omitted. PhanuelB did an excellent job of detailing the excluded information. He organized the information and sourced everything. He was banned from Wikipedia for his efforts. I agree with Mr. Wales. My blog should not be looked to by Wikipedia as a credible source. It appears that fact may be clouding the issue. The open letter asks Wikipedia to take an honest look at what has taken place here. No one is asking Wikipedia to use an advocacy blog as a credible source. The fact is credible sources have been provided to Wikipedia that are currently being ignored. That is the issue. Please read through the credible list of sources and take a look at all of the information that is currently non existent in the current "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article. You can read through PhanuelB's excellent work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhanuelB&action=historysubmit&diff=405159511&oldid=405089368 BruceFisher (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a rapid response squad. I generally agree that the article has a slight bias built in. This bias is perpetuated by being overly hostile to any potential editor who has a potential skepticism regarding the guilt of the accused (which in itself is probably a reaction from so many unsubstantiated edits which do not conform to WP policy from pro-Knox editors). This ensures that only editors with the "right" views on the case edit the article. Some examples of this bias are found in an over-reliance on the Massei report, the characterization of Knox supporters and her family's activities (the blog was right about that), and the muted criticism section regarding the trial. Obviously, though, the blog post cannot be used as a reliable source for anything at all, but I wish they would have made more specific edit requests with citations to reliable sources...and perhaps even came to engage in the editing of this article in conformity with Wikipedia policy. Although the article in its current form is not perfect, it is not broken either. It is generally fair, and the editors generally try to adhere to wikipedia policy in editing it, something that cannot be said for many editors who come here specifically to make the article "more fair" for Knox.LedRush (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you generally, but I think that the article has more problems than that. I just read the entire article from top to bottom, and I have concerns that most serious criticism of the trial from reliable sources has been excluded or presented in a negative fashion. I recommend reading all of this (it is long) and taking particular note of the sections "PhanuelB's Reliable Sources". Compare that to what appears in the article. I have drawn no firm conclusions, but there is enough here to warrant careful examination.

An additional concern, about which again I have drawn no firm conclusions, is that this edit led to a block. I just now personally ran checkuser and found nothing; I invite more experienced checkusers to follow up on my exploration. I am merely raising questions, not putting forward conclusions - at this time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Before this conversation gets too far along, I strongly suggest finding specific instances which you would like to change, propose an edit, and make sure that the edit is supported by a reliable resourse. Discussing the issue in general will not be helpful, and the editors on the board generally treat such discussions with hostility.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

PhanuelB's reliable sources were subject to extensive discussion at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 25#Criticism of the Knox Sollecito Trial. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll note here that the blocking admin mentioned above has retired from Wikipedia. I took the liberty of sending him a mail informing him of this discussion. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be really surprising if a checkuser now actually found something. The checkuser data is kept only from 3 months - and it's obviously been more than 3 months since September. It means nothing. T. Canens (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I just brought that up on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations, and the reply was "Checkuser data automatically expires in 3 months, so Jimmy running a checkuser now is meaningless.". I was going to post about it, but I needed to be very careful to avoid giving Jimbo an excuse to lash out with a nasty personal attack (a point I will stand on, given his actions) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The blogpost is quite misleading in a few ways. It is not true, as has been pointed out that the article "for the most part relies on obsolete and inaccurate British tabloid reports”. The only British tabloid source is the Mirror, for a piece written by the victim’s father, the use of which doesn’t seem unreasonable. I also don’t think the Kercher case is “one of the most controversial and heavily criticized judicial proceedings in modern European history”. It would be more accurate to say that it is a murder case which has received a fair amount of newspaper coverage because it involves sex and drugs and young people abroad. It is true, though, that the conviction of Amanda Knox was criticised in some media along the lines of “public lynching” and “kangaroo court”, as reported on the blog. I don’t think anyone objects per se to that type of material being included in the article, subject to proper consideration of noteworthiness, NPOV, weight and BLP. It’s obvious why this type of edit [1] would be reverted. The problem, if there is one, is that a more sophisticated approach hasn’t materialised. A couple of the sources proposed by the blog have been proposed before but rejected for good reasons (for example, on one occasion the material could only be sourced to the Injustice in Perugia website).

I’d take some convincing that the article needs to pay very much more attention to the “kangaroo court” stuff than it already does. If it looks like it does need to, I’d say this is because the article is, by comparison, overburdened with a blow-by-blow account of forensic evidence etc. If a consensus were to emerge that more info should be added, then sobeit, provided everything conforms to NPOV. But someone needs to kick off that discussion which no-one has been interested in doing in the past. I think it’s quite a complicated discussion once you get into it.

The blog post says that there are various inaccuracies in the article. This can’t be ruled out, but I think there have been such exhaustive discussions that virtually everything in the article has a reliable source which has been checked by editors with varying opinions on the case. At the present time, nothing is wrong with WP processes in that regard. If there are inaccuracies that have gone unnoticed, the talkpage is an open forum. --FormerIP (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that this edit should have been reverted. Condensed or summarized, sure, why not, that would be a perfectly ok editorial revision. But censoring the views of prominent journalists and newspapers because it doesn't fit an agenda, is the precise opposite of NPOV. CNN, CBS, New York Times. Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. Those are sources, and to pretend they don't exist is a mistake. (I would omit Donald Trump, as his views don't seem particularly relevant, except perhaps (perhaps) in a section on celebrity responses.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be seeing censorship of the views of prominent journalists, Jimbo. I'm seeing a lot of text dedicated to a non-neutral quote-farm. I think the correct thing would have been to revert and refer the editor to talk. However, I obviously didn't think so at the time. Instead, it looks like I initiated a discussion and then condensed or summarised the content: [2]. So, a perfectly ok editorial revision. It's been the stable version for quite a while at least. That doesn't make it holy, of course, but any editor remains free to challenge it at any time, so long as they are not subject to a block that has been extensively reviewed and repeatedly declined.

You say: "It is true that reliable sources have been systematically excluded? Yes.". I say: "Do you have any evidence of any improper behaviour in this regard?".--FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I request that you remove all of the indefinite blocks added by user:black Kite over the last 90 days and allow all those banned users to participate in this discussion. hard to be neutral when you have only editors from one side of the controversy represented - tjholme 155.70.23.45 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

People were blocked in the last 90 days? Things have been pretty quiet here since I've been around, and I thought I started here about 3 months ago. Hm...LedRush (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone contributing to this page has been indeffed during the last 90 days. --FormerIP (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of timing, there are several blocked editors that need to be part of this discussion. PhanuelB, wikid77 (not sure if that's correct) for sure. --Lilome (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been awhile since the purges of so many as 'sockpuppets'. Since last Fall anyway. Dont insult everyone involved by pretending you dont remember MLauba. You were in the middle of it. Black Kite did the actual blocking but the rest of you gatekeepers stood by and watched. Once again I ask, take off the blocks and let everyone have a say in this discussion. tjholme 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.70.23.45 (talk)

I haven't said anything actually, but I am most definitely not going to reverse any block that has been reviewed at ANI. I'll also note that Wikid77 isn't blocked and that his conduct has been above reproach for a long time here, which means that indeed, his perspective would be entirely welcome. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, just an observer but, you know, when the founder of wikipedia weighs in, maybe it's time to make an exception to unbanning people. This is kind of an exceptional instance don't you think? One of the issues is that alternate opinions are being banned unfairly. So that fact that it's been "reviewed" does not necessarily substantiate that the ban was fair. It's really easy to just claim something like this when the people who were banned are not there to defend themselves. (173.10.96.65 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

As a Wikipedia novice who has been observing this page for several months, might I suggest that the comments of Mr Wales should be taken seriously. Some respect and humility from some of the individuals who have taken control of the page would not go amiss. This is a controversial case, as anyone who follows the news or browses the internet will realise. It is controversial because the decision of the Italian court in 2009 and the processes leading up to conviction in terms of evidence gathering and prosecutorial conduct have been called into question by a number of named and respected individuals in both the UK and USA, many of whom have considerable experience in jurisprudence or evidence gathering. Their opinions have not been represented on this page and they have been dismissed as ‘individuals with a point of view’, despite the fact that they have clearly investigated the details of the case and have verifiably revealed its shortcomings. In my view, for the article merely to parrot the verdict of the 2009 trial as a neutral point of view without reflecting the deficiencies in the prosecution case, does not do justice to the subject. Some editors have been ignored or blocked simply because their views to not chime with those who control the page. May I suggest that some of these editors, PhanuelB, for example be reinstated and their contributions reassessed by editors who have been completely unconnected with this entry so far. NigelPScott (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Having just noticed this discussion, I'm a bit gobsmacked. The first thing is that Jimbo Wales is jumping in to promote the point of view of a blog that is, by its own admissions, an advocacy site for a particular point of view. OK, this is Jimbo's project, but I thought it was supposed to be built on principles of consensus and NPOV. Looking at the open letter on that site, it makes some claims which are specific and easy to verify, and others that are very vague. Like FormerIP, I picked out a very easily verifiable claim, that the current article "for the most part relies on obsolete and inaccurate British tabloid reports". Sorry, but that is complete bollocks. So, for me, the credibility of the whole thing starts to look pretty doubtful. Now, people are suggesting that we reinstate PhanuelB. A quick Google search of that name makes it clear that a person of that name is trying to fuel a controversy about the murder. So how is that person well-placed to write neutrally about any controversy? I seem to remember that when PhanuelB was editing here, people tried very hard to get him or her to make reasonable suggestions about improving the article but he or she seemed unwilling to enter into any consensus process. We could fill the article up with the opinions of a lot of people, with all possible shades of views, and all of whom have managed to get published. However, we have instead been trying to achieve neutrality by centring the article on verifiable events, rather than opinions (although I don't think we have overlooked all the opinions). Personally, I believe this is the most encyclopaedic approach. That's why I've invested a lot of time and effort in the article (along with a lot of others here). But if the consensus is that the article should give up reporting factual events, and instead should major in saying that Italy is a third world country where people are guilty until proved innocent and that the present trial was just a kangaroo court and a public lynching (all citable from the "sources" quoted in the open letter), please go ahead, but without me. Bluewave (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am very pleased to see Mr Wales participating in the discussion. I am hopeful that PhanuelB will be reinstated very quickly. His voice should have never been silenced and is much needed now. BruceFisher (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This line of discussion seems slightly odd to me. I am not sure why PhanuelB or any other editor who has been indefinitely blocked is required to make any changes to this article. Also, I once again strongly suggest that editors who want to affect change on this article make specific suggestions backed up by reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• We have dealt with activist editing before, I think we have a decent model for dealing with it. We could use an article RfC or we could use a level of protection and/or flagged revisions, we have the option of article parole and of course activist editors can be restricted or coached. It's very clear that some people think that Knox is innocent, and not all of them are saying this solely on the basis of her nationality. More eyes are needed, I think. Jimmy is right, though, that we should not only be fair but we should be seen to be fair. If the result is no different, well, so be it. Our articles on evolution will never satisfy some people but they meet very high standards of balance as a result of at least listening respectfully yo those people. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito has been extremely controversial. Many feel that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongfully convicted. Wikipedia only allows minimal discussion of this controversy. This information is considered "off topic" on the Meredith Kercher page. Keep in mind this is the only page currently available on Wikipedia to discuss the case. Even though this has been called “the trial of the century” and hundreds of articles have been written discussing the controversy, Wikipedia refuses to allow a separate page for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. There is absolutely no explanation for this decision. This will be one of the biggest stories of the decade, yet Wikipedia not only chooses to ignore this fact, they prohibit anyone from creating a page to detail the events. How can Wikipedia be called an encyclopedia when they pick and choose what events in history they will permit discussion of? BruceFisher (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Scott Peterson has his own page, and he is less famous in the world than Amanda Knox. That alone shows bias. Can someone please explain to me why a page for Amanda Knox is not allowed.BruceFisher (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

While your argument is unconvincing, I agree with your position. However, you are unlikely to gain much support for your position here. In fact, I am convinced that the editors on this page will never allow an Amanda Knox article. However, as they have pointed out, the proper way to address this issue is not through this page. They tell us that we need to create an article and then try to get the consensus from the most recent articles for deletion action overturned. I have set up a page for making a Knox article here [3] and you are more than welcome to edit it. I have not, because I believe that all time I devote to that will be wasted unless people agree in concept that a Knox article is warranted. Again, the place for that argument doesn't seem to be here, and with this group of well organized editors against such an article, I doubt that the article will ever exist, despite my strong belief that WP policy clearly supports such an article. If you would like to discuss this further, I suggest we discuss this at my talk page or another venue, as it really doesn't belong. I also suggest looking at the archives on this page for past discussions. It will allow you to understand the arguments against inclusion so that you can better craft a Knox article and/or arguments in support of one.LedRush (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bluewave, your post perfectly encapsulates all that is wrong with this page. While a small coterie of like minded editors have been preciously seeking to preserve the entry in aspic as a summary of a faulty trial, the world has moved on. Wake up and smell the coffee. The reason why millions of people Google 'Amanda Knox' is because the trial is controversial and the Perugian judicial system stinks. Wikipedia needs to reflect this controversy, not pretend it doesn't exist and post 'case closed'. NigelPScott (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of being part of a "coterie of like minded editors", when I'm not. Also please don't claim to know what I'm seeking to do, when you clearly do not know. You are entitled to believe that the "Perugian judicial system stinks" but that is an extraordinary claim and you would need to find extraordinary sources if you want it to be reflected in the article. Bluewave (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out to PhanuelB and many others, all it ever takes to be able to discuss any issues is two things, first to avoid attacking other editors, second, at least a tiny bit of willingness to listen and accept other people's arguments. The proponents of a view closer to the Open Letter who understand this are not blocked and have been participating to the discussions here. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am an Italian user on it.wikipedia, I give my contribute here as I see this discussion page. I must disagree with mr. Wales on his assessment of this "source list", as he writes: " I don't agree that this edit should have been reverted. (..) But censoring the views of prominent journalists and newspapers because it doesn't fit an agenda, is the precise opposite of NPOV. CNN, CBS, New York Times. Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. Those are sources, and to pretend they don't exist is a mistake. (I would omit Donald Trump, as his views don't seem particularly relevant, except perhaps (perhaps) in a section on celebrity responses.) " In fact, I think there is a wider aspect of the issue not to overlook: this "list" of sources is in fact an example of edit creating a NPOV problem. It is fair to say that comentators expressed criticism in a summary form. But those sources are not all reliable nor relevant, some of them (like Paul Ciolino) even changed opinion later. The case of a pulitzer on the New York times prize would deserve itself a mention, but it is possible to verify that while these commentors are famous, as journalists they are in fact not acknowledged with details of the case and part of the information they bring can be proven wrong. Hence I disagree as Wales defines them as "sources" without thorough assessment, the attribution of such a label seems hasty to me: the definition as source for them is dubious at least and should be researched putting caveats for each of them. They are commentators, not sources, they never provided accurate information or coverage of the case, in fact they never provided any coverage at all. By quoting them as if they were sources, as contributors that can be found on a scientific level, in fact we would obviously violate NPOV. Because they are in fact irrelevant, the list of them as "sources" may just have the efect to enlarge disproportionally a collateral discussion, and ultimately this amount of space to secondary judgement an opinions produces a change in the balance of information. Their relevance woud be not proportionate to their importance among information and sources about the case. Because their credibility is not established in relation to the murder case and because they are not really directly related, they produce in fact a change of topic: not focused on the page Murder of Meredith Kercher, but about a media phenomenon. As related to the case on a secondary level, this kind of commenters should maybe be considered under a proper chapter like "journalism" or "media show", or "opinions" or "emotional impact of the case on media", maybe even "activism". But in a summary form, without "taking the scene" and altering the balance and focus of the page, and they shall not be inserted as if they were sources. I think Wikipedia shall not follow and appease media stream, its value really is its potential to provide a quality standard. Aki 001 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "sources" in Wikipedia (WP:RS) refers more to the written documents, rather than the people who provide comments about the case. Articles are referenced by links to past documents, rather than wait for the current opinions of experts. In the U.S., journalists are typically considered as being objective about a topic, as opposed to the more general term "writers" as being those who are allowed wide speculation, or even fictional views about a topic. The argument that some people cannot be trusted because they "changed opinion later" is completely false, because even a jury would be unable to reach a verdict, as people had to change their opinions to agree on a verdict. Hence, the entire core of such restrictions about sources is incorrect, so unless you "change your mind" (trapped by your own argument), your conclusions cannot be used. Hence, by your own logic, you have nothing more to say. See the problems when discounting people if they change their minds? Of course, in Wikipedia, people are free to rethink an issue and reach another conclusion, and can post other messages despite having changed a viewpoint. -Wikid77 21:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Jimmy, one of the last times this came up at ANI, I took a look at the article (for the first time), and in my view the article was surprisingly neutral given the controversy surrounding the case. That was some months ago and the article may have changed considerably in the meantime, but what happens if we all take another look and decide that the complaints from a blog writer pushing a very definite point of view are without merit? What will you do then? Resolute 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to look at an article and know whether "smoking guns" have been systematically edited out. I've read various post mortems about murder cases gone wrong (Leonard Peltier etc.) and I would say that when second guessing a prosecution often the most damning details are very subtle. Someone could take them out and an onlooker might never notice, but it would take away the whole case.

There is absolutely no reason why we should not welcome the help of an offline advocacy group in tracking down interesting new sources for an article. NPOV is not some imaginary monochromatic gray - it is a play between all the colors of the ideological spectrum, working together to produce a panchromatic white light that can pull out every shade from what it illumines. You just have to make sure that you're putting stuff in, not taking stuff out, and all will be well. Wnt (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I just took a stab at the first "false claim" they mentioned, the luminol and the bloody footprints. The Daily Beast source cited backs up what the article says - but it also says that the defense showed video of the person collecting evidence which showed (they imply) that she hadn't changed gloves when she testified she had (and should have). So the claims of crime scene contamination have much better backing than just the letter from the American academics which is cited. The article currently presents the prosecution's evidence and not that from the defense. This is just one dot of one "i" that I looked at, but it was missing - and so I say the petition's claims deserve careful examination as Jimbo says.

I would further say in general that I spotted some sources reporting from a time when the prosecution had presented but the defense had not had a chance to rebut. Such sources can be used, but because they don't show both sides we have to be very cautious to make sure that we don't miss covering the other side of the story. I think that specifically labeling all sources like this with something like (interim coverage of prosecutor's case) is actually worth doing here. Wnt (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This goes the issue of how to reach NPOV in an article like this, which would be a discussion well worth having. One possible view would be that we give extensive coverage to the case of the prosecution on the one hand and the case of the defence on the other. But it isn't obvious that this should be our standard (I think our article already leans too far in that direction). How would it apply, for example, in the case of Harold Shipman or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi? I rather think it should be about considering sources on their individual merits. Three will always be scope for improving the article.

I guess my point is that, if the article doesn't conform to your conception of what NPOV should be, then that is a good reason to raise the issue. But I don't accept that it would be a good reason to assume that the article must be being sat on by collection of crooked and oppressive editors.

By the way, thank you for going to trouble of spot-checking one of the claims in the blog. I don't think it's surprising that the material checks out given the number of eyes that have been on the article. But there's our headline. --FormerIP (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just a blog claim. Amanda's appeal [4] (English summary [5]) discusses the "Luminol revealed footprints" starting at page 114 and points out that they tested negative for blood. It's just one of many article claims sourced to early news reports written before the defense case was presented. Statements in the forensic evidence section sourced to the judge's report on Guede's trail where no defense case for the other two suspects was presented also have this same problem. Another issue is In the "Events Surrounding the Murder" section. The witness report of hearing a scream and 11 PM time of death were disputed at trail. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales has been exceedingly polite and professional in his treatment of this article. The fact is that there is no argument for redirecting "Amanda Knox" to "Murder of Meredith Kercher", since "O.J. Simpson" does not redirect to "Murder of Nicole Simpson", "Ed Gein" does not redirect to "Murder of (any of Gein's victims)", and so on and so forth. I am shocked that regular contributors to Wikipedia are unable to see the way in which this simple mechanism breaks NPOV. Can Wikipedia really afford the publicity of a group of its writers and editors getting together to try to manipulate public perception of an ongoing criminal investigation? The answer is unequivocally "no", and in pursuing this behavior you are directly contributing to the fiscal problems that have plagued this site since its inception. --User:Jcities (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is exactly right and I hope he gets that there has been a clamp down, not just limited to reliable sources and not just limited to not allowing a page for Amanda Knox. The people who have been blocked don't want a this or a that page, just an article that is neutral. As it is, it is not. That is not attributable merely to exclusion of reliable sources or any other specific limitation that preserves the integrity of the bias, it is an agenda for the page, which is against Wikipedia's rules.Perk100 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Perk100

Perhaps the article should be called "The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito", or something to that effect. I'm not sure that separate pages for people involved in the case are necessary. The article is about the trial and the international media coverage around it, which is what makes the topic noteworthy, not the murder itself.Perk100 (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Perk100

It is important to note that this case is ongoing. Italy allows 2 appeals. Detractors will say that the court ruled, so the page should be slanted to suit the court ruling. According to Italian law, guilt has not yet been determined. From reading the current article you would never know this fact. There is a lot of chatter outside of Wikipedia. I urge everyone here not to be influenced by advocacy groups on either side of this debate. It is important to look at all of the facts and present them fairly. An advocacy group may have brought this problem to the attention of Mr. Wales but it will be the honest facts that that will influence much needed change. BruceFisher (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Because the case is ongoing, the article can be expanded to describe issues which have been reported about the appeal process, for over a year now (since before March 2010 last year). -Wikid77 22:01, 25 March, revised 13:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia puts far too much weight on official judgements, which is inappropriate except in the hard sciences. Just imagine how a Wiki-article on the Nancy Smith case would have looked until 2009. You would have a lot of reliable reports that the convicted people are innocent, yet these claims would not have been given a proper weight. The latest development in this case would prove that it would be inappropriate to put so much weight on the outcome of the justice system; the High Court has ordered them to return to jail because proper procedure for acquittal was not followed, the actual evidence for guilt/innocence is not relevant here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is complex. But I think some of your premises are wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be cautious about how much weight it puts on official judgements, per WP:PRIMARY. This may be questionable (I tend to think so). An article on Nancy Smith in 2009, should have reflected the reliable sources at the time. I'm not very familiar with Nancy Smith, but I'm presuming you're pointing out that people's understanding of the subject changed over time. However, WP:BALL. Your argument that it is wrong to put weight on the outcome of the criminal justice system because of something decided by the High Court has an obvious problem of logic to it. --FormerIP (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox monthly on U.S. networks' Evening news

I have been trying to emphasize this issue, for the past year, Amanda Knox has appeared (in video replay) almost every month on the top U.S. TV networks' evening-news broadcasts. The flood of American users comes with those broadcasts, not as a coordinated "attack by an advocacy group". The U.S. news reports rarely mention the victim "Meredith Kercher" nor Sollecito, and the focus often gives the impression that Amanda Knox is being re-tried alone, rather than the actual "joint" appellate trial with Raffaele Sollecito ("So-Lay-cha-to"). I wanted to explain the U.S. "evening news" in other terms: who is the equivalent of news anchors Brian Williams or Lester Holt or Katie Couric in the UK TV networks, or Canadian TV, or German TV or Italian TV? We already noted several sources stating Amanda Knox was a bigger TV personality in Italy during 2009 than Carla Bruni, due to televised excerpts of the court proceedings. Most of the U.S. interest in Amanda Knox comes from nation-wide TV broadcasts, not from some advocacy sites planning to flood WP with edits. The recent TV movie (and controversial responses from the Knox family, Kercher and Sollecito families) gave Amanda Knox added individual notability for the 2-hour film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy (broadcast Feb. 21, 2011 at 9 pm EST). These are U.S. nationwide TV broadcasts, not bloggers seeking support. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that one of the principal objectives of this post is to highlight the need for an individual Knox article: there is rather little preventing interested editors from planning such a biography in their userspace, or indeed going ahead with a full biography in the mainspace. As much as there have been claims on this talk page and at other venues that the simple concept of such a biography has been shunned, the greatest failing of all attempts at a biography to date - I would argue - has been a refusal to understand that a true biography (note the emphasis and continued use of this noun) must establish Knox's own individual notability both in a neutral tone and in a context that goes beyond her involvement in the Kercher case. Wikid, please forgive me for bringing this up, but do you understand that the resurrection of the Amanda Knox link would entail excluding from the article, for example, such content as that which has dominated some of your own efforts in the last 12 months? However, I do admit that the reasoning of WP:BLP1E that has gone against the continued existence of a separate page in previous discussions on this subject is perhaps now not as forceful as in the past. SuperMarioMan 05:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no very strong view on this particular case but wanted to re-emphasize a good point that SuperMarioMan puts forward here: BLP1E considerations push us to ask whether there is enough independent material to write an actual biography of Amanda Knox, separate from the material in this article. It's important not to create a POV fork, etc. I do not know if there is sufficient standalone material for such an article.

If Amanda Knox is released on appeal, and goes on to prominence for other things, then of course eventually there could be an article. Or, if there is enough material about her life that doesn't really belong here, then there could be an article today. Is there?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Doing a Google search for Amanda Knox there are 8,670,000 results, a search for Meredith Kercher gets 298,000 results. People are searching for 'Amanda Knox' and being directed to this site. This is one of the top news stories of the decade and deserves to have its own article. The Amanda Knox Trial is the MAIN story. The question at hand is if the verdict was right and an entire article should discuss this controversy alone. The murder of Meredith Kercher itself has little to add. The current article does not go into the controversial trial nearly enough. It is surprising and strange that Wikipedia does not have an article with 'Amanda Knox' in the title. I suggest a new article - The Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito Trials or Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.Issymo (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Probably. There are even numerous news reports of her personal activities, while incarcerated, including continuing with college classes by correspondance, plus ongoing interviews, the civil suit which she won to stop Italian publication of Fiorenza Sarzanini's book Amanda e gli altri ("Amanda and the Others"), the confiscation of her prison diaries, the false report of her being HIV-positive later retracted as being HIV-negative, her increased fluency of Italian (long talks with cellmates & prison officials), fan mail received in prison, writing letters to friends, each birthday-in-prison event, playing guitar in prison groups, changing her hairstyles, choice of clothes worn in court, and her interactions with other inmates. Those activities might not seem as dramatic as first-degree felonies, but many reporters have been able to print articles about those events. If there are 2 WP:RS sources for each event, then I would consider them significant to include in her bio-page text. -Wikid77 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that Amanda Knox remains under full protection, I've struck through a small part of my comment - mainspace inclusion of a biographical article would indeed require wider discussion at this talk page. With regard to the one-event guidelines, Knox would appear to represent something of a borderline case. Of course, in light of the appeals and media such as the TV film, it could certainly be argued that, as a biographical subject, she no longer relates to a single event. However, the flipside of the coin could assert that since the original murder of Meredith Kercher effectively entails all of the above, a separate BLP is still not merited. (Similar arguments can be, and have been, offered in response to a number of proposals to rename this article "Trial of Amanda Knox" - however, the murder predates the trial(s).) The rationale for having no individual biography also encompasses BLP concerns, which include the potential for such an article to be a magnet for vandalism and a platform for activism (the reasoning behind the current full protection). SuperMarioMan 08:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The BLP1E criteria have not applied to Know for at least a couple of years. The policy states: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." There are two elements here (one with two parts) that must be satisfied in order for a person not to be justified in having his/her own article. 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual.

Element One: Single Event

It would take an incredibly narrow definition of "one event" to have Amanda Know fall under that Wikipedia category. Such a narrow definition, as I have noted before, would exclude huge numbers of artists, musicians, authors, actors and , yes, criminals, who already have pages devoted to them. Knox is covered by reliable sources in association with many activities. She is covered for the many lawsuits in which she is involved. She is covered as an example of Italian jurisprudence. She is covered as an example of controversy. She is covered as the subject of a movie. She gives interviews, as do her parents, and she is covered in this context.

Element Two: Low Profile

Even if you define a single event so broadly as to exclude many BLPs on Wikipedia, the second element of the test is not met. Knox has not kept a low profile. Her parents still routinely give interviews which are covered not only by reliable sources, but the national (US) press. She has a movie about her. She is the subject of biographical books. She remains a high-profile individual even years after the murder, and with new books and shows still coming out about her, it would be impossible to state that she is "likely to remain a low profile individual."LedRush (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The real problem here is that until anyone agrees in concept to a Knox article, it seems like a waste of time to try and develop one.LedRush (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the focus of this subject has moved on since the murder in 2007. This case is now an international phenomenon and Wikipedia should reflect this. Narrowly focusing on the case misses the broader picture. The reason that it has become notorious is because so much of the evidence is disputed, false and/or irrelevant, for example, the point about footprints in blood being found in the flat was withdrawn by the prosecution's forensic scientist Stefanoni, since tests for blood were negative but this information was initially withheld from the court. The role of the media in painting and sustaining a guilty picture to an unsequestered jury also needs more space. Wikipedia should explain that advocates of innocence are not merely questioning the evidence but are asking why such an unbelievable case was ever allowed to proceed, who is hoping to gain from it and why a prosecutor who is himself indicted for abuse of office should have been put in charge and even now remains in the prosecution team. NigelPScott (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am thinking the controversy about the luminol-revealed footprints was that they nested negative for Kercher's DNA, but I don't think test-for-blood actions could be documented, and anyway the prosecution withheld that evidence, from the defense (until the July-2009 court break), for longer than the normal legal time limit in Italy. Plus similar instances of controversial details have made the Knox/Sollecito trial become WP:UNDUE-balance text, to be moved into a subarticle dedicated to the "Trial of Knox and Sollecito" as (valid) content-fork (not a "POV-fork" - see WP:FORK). -Wikid77 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also WP:CRIME to consider. --FormerIP (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

CRIME doesn't seem to apply either. There are no existing articles which can devote the necessary encyclopedic content about the person, Amanda Knox. Any attemp to expand the current article to include biographical content would result in WP:UNDUE, and is generally resisted by the editors here anyway. Furthermore, it assumes that the person is notable only for committing the crime (the same as BLP1E above). The arguments above has centered around the idea that Knox is now famous for more than that.LedRush (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Amanda Knox is notable and deserves her own article. It never even occurred to me that there wouldn't be one now. This is not merely due to the TV movie about her, or the international actions on her behalf. I regard her as notable because she is facing six years in prison for saying that Italian cops smacked her on the head, and because she couldn't pick them out from among those officers whom the Italian police department chose to show her. They even prosecuted her parents for saying she'd been abused! This kind of extreme criminal libel prosecution of people alleging police brutality convinces me that brutality must be almost ubiquitous in Italy, because no one knowing the system would dare try to speak up the way that she did. This is an issue entirely apart from the murder case. Wnt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The separate article for Amanda Knox was redirected to MoMK because there seemed to be a lack of individual notability, before the controversial film was broadcast by Lifetime (TV network) on Feb. 21, 2011. -Wikid77 13:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User-space draft bio page about Amanda Knox

23-March-2011: After months of discussions about creating a NPOV-neutral, balanced bio page for American student Amanda Knox, I have created a user-space draft:
   • User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox - draft bio page (set _NOINDEX__ as omitted by search engines)
That user-space draft (which is not searchable by either Google Search or Yahoo! Search or Bing.com: see option "_NOINDEX_" in Help:Magic words) has been advised, by the involved admins, as a place to start to consider re-creating a main-space bio page article about Amanda Knox. If consensus can be gained about contents, as having an NPOV-neutral balance, in that draft page, then an article would be more likely. Please feel free to edit that page, and if approved, it would be moved (along with merging the entire editing history) into Wikipedia main namespace for articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you have done this. Such a page would be in direct violation of WP:BLP1E. I cannot possibly see the community supporting it's existence.Griswaldo (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Strawman argument Griswaldo.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to see the BLP1E arguments brandied about because they clearly don't apply here (and people rarely respond to any such proof). As I wrote above:

The BLP1E criteria have not applied to Know for at least a couple of years. The policy states: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." There are two elements here (one with two parts) that must be satisfied in order for a person not to be justified in having his/her own article. 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual.

Element One: Single Event

It would take an incredibly narrow definition of "one event" to have Amanda Know fall under that Wikipedia category. Such a narrow definition, as I have noted before, would exclude huge numbers of artists, musicians, authors, actors and , yes, criminals, who already have pages devoted to them. Knox is covered by reliable sources in association with many activities. She is covered for the many lawsuits in which she is involved. She is covered as an example of Italian jurisprudence. She is covered as an example of controversy. She is covered as the subject of a movie. She gives interviews, as do her parents, and she is covered in this context.

Element Two: Low Profile

Even if you define a single event so broadly as to exclude many BLPs on Wikipedia, the second element of the test is not met. Knox has not kept a low profile. Her parents still routinely give interviews which are covered not only by reliable sources, but the national (US) press. She has a movie about her. She is the subject of biographical books. She remains a high-profile individual even years after the murder, and with new books and shows still coming out about her, it would be impossible to state that she is "likely to remain a low profile individual."LedRush (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The "event" is currently ongoing. There is only one event. The murder of Meredith Kercher, of which Knox is accused and now standing trial for. If, after the trials are over she sustains notability then write a biography of her, by all means. But you can't point to ongoing coverage of an event that has not concluded as proof of lasting notability. Knox currently fits BLP1E to the letter, and we wont know otherwise until the event finishes:

• Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

BLP1E is not being "bandied about". As I stated already I cannot possibly see the community agreeing, at this time, that she qualifies for her own biography. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring the entire second prong of the BLP1E. Knox is not a low profile individual, and she certainly will not "remain" one. Even if your arguments on the one-event are right (and they are clearly not), there is no way that BLP1E can possibly apply here, and it is disheartening to see so many ignore essential parts of WP policy.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the development of this draft. Caught between WP:UNDUE and a tight reading of WP:BLP1E are many encyclopedia-worthy Reliable Sources. Let's make the draft as comprehensive as possible; I can't see how phenomenal level of coverage of Knox doesn't belong somewhere. Ocaasi ^c 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can. WP:NOTNEWS. The key is enduring coverage which is very difficult to ascertain, again, when something is still news. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've still ignored the text of BLP1E, and movies, documentaries and books are generally not considered news.LedRush (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently had a similar discussion over an image of Khaled Saeed which was described in hundreds of RS surrounding the Egyptian revolution, but some questioned whether it was definitely historic yet, or just news (the sources describe it as historic, today, of course that could fade or change). I think cases where the 'news' coverage is prolific, or where the claims made in the coverage are specific to the subject and consistently bold, that News becomes Encyclopedic. These events may have some of the feel of court-blotter/tabloid as they are rehashed over and over, but the sheer amount of coverage has transformed what was only a news event into a cultural phenomenon of its own, with its own collateral mini-events. Either these can be covered at the main article (which seems to insult Kercher's legacy) or they can be part of a Knox article (which leans on BLP1E). That we can't find a great place for them doesn't mean they shouldn't be somewhere. And that they are still 'newsy' doesn't mean they're also not encyclopedic. It's a gray area at least, and I'm not sure why a draft which presents the alternative idea shouldn't be brought forth for discussion. Ocaasi ^c 18:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what is going on right now? It is being discussed?Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, not really, since your comments were that it's wrong even before the draft is finished. I think we should at least finish the draft before discussing whether or not it is appropriate. How else can we compare its content and scope to policy? Ocaasi ^c 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would Support an article for Amanda Knox. She even got a TV-film about her in particular. She is the main person even trumpng Meredith Kercher herself in this story. I would strongly advice that we start a article for Amanda.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo is into Strawman arguments I can tell. He refuses to see the many things that points to Knox having her own article. Its so obvious that Knox has reached beyond being simply an accomplice in a possible murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's also obvious that you've never met an article that you didn't !vote to keep. We all have our own particular faults and points of view, but let's not let that get in the way of the actual subject here.

Personally, I'm not too sure here. In all honesty, what can be said about Ms. Knox that will not be in connection to this case? Some basic "she was born in...", "she went to school at..." stuff? It most certainly cannot be turned into some sort of advocacy platform for her alleged innocence. We really need to take stock of just what WP:BLP1E, WP:EVENT, and WP:CRIME are meant to address here. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, the problem is that in no reading of BLP1E can a Knox article be excluded (she's not a low profile person). Crime is similarly not applicable, though admittedly less clearly. (Please see above for more extensive points and references to policies). Finally, I'm nor sure I've heard a WP:EVENT argument on this before, but it seems pretty obvious that it doesn't apply here either.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't really happen to agree with your BLP1E interpretation, particularly the low-profile aspect which has more to do with the intentions of the subject herself rather than of those around her, i.e. parents giving interviews is irrelevant to her profile. This person is a convicted criminal, and crimes routinely receive a degree of coverage in the media, especially and obviously the sensational ones. If every criminal involved in a notable crime were deemed "high-profile", thus getting them past the BLP1E hurdle, that would render WP:CRIME as it applies to perpetrators essentially meaningless. Read what is written there; "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person." That is far and away enough of a reason to keep "Amanda Knox" as a redirect to the current article. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a "Trial of Amanda Knox" article, or something of that nature might not be warranted. As in, something split out of this entry. But I just don't see a bio being warranted. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I think that is a very suitable alternative, and could avoid a pseudobiography issue, if there is one. We could call it whatever fits, as long as we can cover all of the encyclopedic RS. Ocaasi ^c 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would think that a biographical article would include some ("she was born in...", "she went to school at..." stuff), but it would also include much more on the other trials she's been in, the media reaction to the trial(s), the public perceptions of Knox, the coverage in fiction and non-fiction books/movies and other activities. All of these topics are glossed over here as they cannot be included without introducing WP:UNDUE concerns. As we seen many times before, these types of articles are very common in this type of situation. Of course, a biographical article would have to be neutral and not be a content fork (as the previous (and horrible) "article" was on both accounts). But, if done correctly, it could take some pressure off of this article to cover topics which clearly don't belong in a "Murder of Meredith Kurcher" article.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As we seen many times before, these types of articles are very common in this type of situation. Out of curiosity what is a comparable entry?Griswaldo (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal: I'll give you a list of a few prominent ones after you respond to my arguments regarding BLP1E et al, above. (Hint, the list has been produced on these pages before).LedRush (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Notability due to persistent coverage in films/books: The main reason Amanda Knox has individual notability is due to the "persistent" wider coverage, beyond just the news reports, as being the subject of films, documentaries, and several books: the U.S. TV film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy is presented as based on a true story, and at the end of the film, it displays a message that Knox's parents have been indicted for criminal slander in Italy, as facing up to 3 years in prison (which refers to the real parents). As for "waiting for the news to be over", there must be a "statute of limitations" in claiming all reports are "news" because experts have advised that if Amanda Knox is acquitted of the murder/assault (transporting a knife, and staging a crime scene), there are likely to be follow-on "news" stories of people protesting that she got away, or months later, someone claiming to have found new evidence to convict if they can be paid to appear in the Italian media. When it comes to notable awards, then Knox was awarded the civil suit judgment for 40,000 euros ($55,000) for privacy violation against the publication of the book Amanda e gli altri ("Amanda and the Others" based on her prison diaries) by a well-known reporter for Corriere della Sera. Plus, she is also indicted for another felony crime: of criminal slander against the Perugia police. So, although not being accused as a "serial killer", such is accused of 2 separate crimes as a "serial felon", and hence WP:BLP1E no longer applies if 2 felony crimes are charged, years apart. Hence, the user-space draft is intended to seek balanced, NPOV-neutral coverage about her life, rather than prove notability. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's obviously a concern about having coverage of Amanda Knox overshadow coverage of Meredith Kercher, the way it has in the real world. This is a sad event no matter what happened, and we should try not to see Wikipedia as extending further injustice either way. It's simply true that the coverage of Knox has vastly exceeded that or Kercher; a tactful way to separate the two is to give Knox her own article. As an encyclopedia, we cannot resolve the issue by limiting the coverage of Knox on Kercher's article if RS present a more comprehensive case. Ocaasi ^c 21:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that such a move might create a POV fork of the article or be used as justification to let this article remain slanted. The views of Knox and Sollecito's lawyers as well as the sources supporting the innocence of Knox and Sollecito must be fairly presented on this article and not minimalized. They barely exist here as it is, and when they do they are written in such a way as to leave no doubt that the people who wrote the article disagree. I personally do not think there is anything about Knox other than this case, so anything about Knox needs to be mentioned here. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think a BIO page is necessary but would like to see a new article that is centered on the controversial Trial and Conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. News about this case is centered on whether this was a wrongful conviction or not. Doing a Google search for Amanda Knox there are 8,670,000 results, a search for Meredith Kercher gets 298,000 results. People are searching for 'Amanda Knox' and being directed to this site. This is one of the top news stories of the decade and deserves to have its own article. The Amanda Knox Trial is the MAIN story. The question at hand is if the verdict was right and an entire article should discuss this controversy alone. The current article does not go into the controversial trial nearly enough. Wikipedia should add a new article about the controversial trial and conviction that has 'Amanda Knox' in the title. I suggest a new article - The Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito Trials or Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.Issymo (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• We absolutely do not need a new article about the controversial trial. All of that should be incorporated into this article. If this article acts like there is no controversy or minimizes this very noteworthy aspect it would be (and currently is) a violation of WP:NPOV. DreamGuy (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another option would be to rename this article The Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio Trial or something similar. The title Murder of Meredith Kercher puts the emphasis on the murder, when in reality there is far more information and interest in the trial and conviction. The trial is where the largest controversy exists and the current title doesn't reflect that. I would either create a new page or rename this one to more accurately reflect what people want to learn about when they do a search. Issymo (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I should mention that I just merged in the old Amanda Knox to the userpage draft. There's lots of biography there, and I think it only scratches the surface. I didn't even add anything about her parents yet, which belongs there, with their own charges against them, etcetera. This should be moved to Amanda Knox, but should administrators fail to do the right thing, then "Trial of Amanda Knox" or the like could be used strictly as a work around. From the last case I saw of this, Arrest of Bradley Manning (now at Bradley Manning) I have no doubt that putting words in front of the biography name is not the best thing for BLP purposes and improperly limits the article scope, but the point is, if deletionists are just going to recite off a bunch of policies like NOTNEWS and BLP1E and UNDUE and so forth, using each one to say exactly the opposite of what it says, then people just have to look around for an unblocked name and take it, even if they have to resort to a random series of letters and numbers. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep adding to the draft. -Wikid77 13:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any way we could create a separate article for Amanda Knox and be following Wikipedia policies. Like it or not, she has no notability at all except for the topic this article already covers. Any inadequacy with the coverage of that topic needs to be addressed here, not on a separate article. I do agree, however, with the above comments that it is not the murder that is notable but the related trials, so perhaps the article could be renamed. I do not think it needs to be, however.DreamGuy (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless it became NPOV or a content fork, there is no way that a Wikipedia article could contravene WP policies. No objection I've seen based on actual WP policy even passes the smell test.LedRush (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy. The article should be about the case, with a focus on the court and media. (Many documentaries, films, and books mean the case is more notable, of which she is a part. Perk10 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10

I also agree. So far, Amanda Knox is only notable for her involvement in this murder. Just as Tim Masters is only notable for his involvement in the Peggy Hettrick murder case. As in that case, the redirect from the suspect's name leads readers to the right place. --Footwarrior (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for edit: Forensics Section

The article reads, "A further footprint, believed to be a woman's, was found under the body. It was the right size to be Knox's, although it was never matched to her footwear." The edit should change footprint to shoe-print. This was not a bare footprint. Massei did not conclude that this was Amanda's as he stated his belief that Amanda was barefoot during the murder.RoseMontague (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "footprint" has been changed to "shoe print". --Footwarrior (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Might it not also be useful to point out more explicitly that the print that was insinuated to belong to Amanda was made by precisely the same brand of Nike shoe that Rudy Guede was known to have worn that night? Amanda of course did not own such a shoe. This adds credence to the claim that this was simply an incomplete print for Guede.PietroLegno (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Source? Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The source on this on is the defense expert's report (Vinci). His conclusion was that all of the shoe-prints on the pillow were made by Nike Outbreak 2.  :http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=673X542464&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.friendsofamanda.org%2Fmiscellaneous%2Fvinci.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.injusticeinperugiaforum.org%2Fvinci-s-analysis-of-the-pillow-t732.html

Page 49 Google translated reads "CONCLUSIONS: Found on the pillow below

the basin of the body of Meredith Kercher There are traces of the left shoe ALL clearly related to a shoe Nike Outbreak 2 brand model, as well as that have successfully attached by C.T. a right shoe of the same brand and model." The prosecution expert claimed it was a print from a shoe of Amanda's size and Massei concluded as I stated above (Basically he didn't bother to make a conclusion either way because he felt that Amanda was barefoot during the murder).RoseMontague (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit: Forensics Section

The article reads: "Knox's DNA was found on a kitchen knife, recovered from Sollecito's flat, and Kercher's DNA[52] was found on the blade.[53] The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck.[29][54] At trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment.[55] A group of American academics wrote an open letter in 2009 expressing concern that contamination of this evidence was a possibility, noting in particular that, whilst DNA was found on the knife, tests for blood were negative.[56]"

The biggest issue that the defense has with "Kercher's DNA" found on the blade is missing from the article. Both appeals make it clear that the biggest issue is that the DNA was of LCN variety and proper LCN testing procedures were not done. That does reflect somewhat in the article's statement that "contamination of this evidence was a possibility" but is not given the importance that reflects reality.RoseMontague (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made that observation in the past, and agree with this edit request. This is an important distinction.LedRush (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Source the claims, then. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Page 249 and 250 of the Massei Report mentions that the DNA evidence from the knife blade was low copy number and that the profile peaks were lower than established guidelines. --Footwarrior (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The article reads: Luminol revealed footprints made in blood in the flat, compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[24]:373[49]

This should read: Luminol-revealed footprints all tested negative for blood and none contained the DNA of the victim. Source for information: 1. The Massei Report. Massei, G. (4 March 2010). "Sentenza, Knox Amanda Marie, Solliceto Raffaele" (in Italian). Retrieved 9 July 2010. 2. Maria D'Alia, Il Delitto Di Perugia: L'Atra Verita (The Crime of Perugia: The Other Truth), page 125-8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Miller65 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe Miller65 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Massei report does mention that the DNA sample on the knife in LCN. It doesn't conclude that this is a problem, though. It also doesn't conclude that tests were not carried out properly - on the contrary, it sees no problem with any of the DNA evidence. It also doesn't say anything about bloodstains testing negative for blood or not containing the victim's DNA. --FormerIP (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We have many sources that have said that the LCN DNA was a problem. You've excluded them in the past because in your own OR you disagreed with them (I think, I forget all the details). If we have sources that say the DNA is LCN, we should include it. If the method of testing the DNA is criticized in sources, that should also be included.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Provide the sources, please. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see above for sources affirming that it was LCN and lower than established guidelines.LedRush (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No sources have been presented in this section except for one primary source, the "Massei report," which we should not be using to drive our article (Wikipedia articles rely on secondary sources), and further, no quotes from said report are provided that would let us figure out if the report says what RoseMontague alleges it says. No reliable secondary sources have been presented that discuss the LCNness of the DNA and the alleged deficiencies of LCN dna. Please provide sources, quotes and links if possible. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And having now reviewed the page and section of the "Massei report," I find that it is merely a summary of what a consultant to the Sollecito defense said about the DNA. As I said before, we should not be taking the statements of paid advocates (either for the prosecution or the defence) as fact. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Massei report is used extensively in this article, and is also used on the talk page frequently to say that a secondary source is wrong (meaning if there is a conflict between a secondary source and the Massei report, the editors on this page have blocked the introduction of the secondary source - see last archive for examples). Regardless, this source [6] doesn't use the term LCN, but clearly says that the DNA testing was seriously flawed because there wasn't nearly enough DNA. This source [7] says that the amount of DNA was tiny and is, therefore, a problem. This petition [8] signed by DNA experts says that the DNA was of an extremely low level. We don't have to use the term LCN (even though by WP policy we are justified in doing so), but the criticism of the process regarding the DNA should be made clear and be more accurate.LedRush (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The first two articles do not say what you say they say. Specifically, you say the articles say "the DNA testing was seriously flawed because there wasn't nearly enough DNA." However, both articles make it clear they are reporting on either an open letter by "nine US specialists in DNA forensics," and "According to Hampikian" You can't take one side of a dispute and word it as fact - there is a dispute over the DNA, so Wikipedia must present both sides neutrally. Please review WP:NPOV. Please don't link to obviously unreliable sources again, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, this is in the context of what the DNA experts said, not reported as fact. If I implied otherwise, I am sorry.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The information that scientists have questioned some of the DNA evidence is already in the article (although, slightly scandalously, the fact that those scientist work with the Knox defence team [9][10] is omitted). You may think it is additionally important to use the term LCN in the article, which is fine if you can find secondary sources that use that term. --FormerIP (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As has been proven to you in the past, they do not work for the Knox defense team. Some, but not all, of the scientists who have been vocal critics of the DNA evidence are associated with the innocence project, which is an independent organization dedicated to free wrongly convicted people through DNA evidence. Your attempts to stir up scandal where there is none is the only "scandal" here.LedRush (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says: "[Dr Hampikian] is currently working with the family of Amanda Knox, the American student jailed in Italy...". I don't think it's unreasonable to query why his view in another publication which doesn't mention the link should be presented as if it is independent. Anyway, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that I will not achieve an article with no pro-Knox bias. Do you have any secondary sources on the question of LCN or are we done? --FormerIP (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've provided the sources above regarding the characterization of the DNA evidence, and have conformed the article to the sources.LedRush (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How have you proven the 9 experts and Hampikian are unpaid? Not that I have an opinion, but please provide sources. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You are nitpicking FormerIP. It is true that Greg Hampikian is a now consultant to the Knox defense and Elizabeth Johnson became involved on a pro bono basis after she was contacted by a Knox supporter. The other people who signed the letter have no connection to the case, although they do represent prestigious organizations. If you wish to suggest that those other scientists work with the defense on some regular basis you are obliged to provide a source. Further, this group of experts refer to the "low copy DNA electropherogram" obtained for the knife. A copy of the e-gram is included in their petition. If you have a credible source that suggests that we are not dealing with LCN here pray produce it. PietroLegno (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that Elizabeth Johnson also worked for the Knoxes. Thanks, that's a good lead. --FormerIP (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can see the archives for the last discussion, but I'm not suggesting that the info go into the article, so I'm not going to track down the sources again.LedRush (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Forensic section of this article is incredibly biased against the defendents. It is basically a summary of the prosecutions points without equal time to the defense. People who come to this article for understaning may actually wonder why there is a controversy when there is so much unanswered convicting evidence against them. The language used is also not NPOV. The defense points have been puposefully not allowed before but hopefully it is time to correct this. Below are parts that need to have the defense response added: 1. Her body had been disrobed and moved some time after death, no material from which contamination could have come. 2. Luminol revealed footprints made in blood in the flat, compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito. 3. Knox's fingerprints were not found in Kercher's bedroom, nor her own bedroom. 4. Investigators concluded that an apparent break-in at the flat had been staged, partly because the window seemed to have been broken after the room had been ransacked.Issymo (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is very difficult to find the appeals on the web, however the only translations of them are machine translations. I have human translations of a few sections and have posted both the Italian and Google translated versions on my docstoc page: http://www.docstoc.com/profile/rosemontague . I was the first to post several of these documents including the appeals currently under consideration on Raffaele, Amanda, and Mignini/Comodi (asking for longer jail time). Amanda's appeal covers the negative quantification and Low Copy Number primarily in sections 5.1 and 5.2 but it is discussed throughout the appeals. Rather than giving you a long quote you can read them yourself but here is just a short one covering the procedures Stefanoni did not follow as it relates to LCN DNA: "In particular, the protocols cited recommend the following precautions for the correct interpretation of genetic profiles of small quantities of genetic material:

- Amplification of extracts in these cases must be conducted at least duplicate; - A particular allele in the genetic profile should be given final only if identified in at least two different experiments; - The concentration of the sample is not recommended; - The minimum height for the interpretation of an allele is 50 RFU. None of the information given was respected by geneticist Police Scientific."RoseMontague (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide links to reliable sources that report whatever information you are currently going on about. Your own person docstoc page is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You asked for some quotes and links earlier? I don't see how my docstoc page is different from the translated Massei report as provided on PMF that you indicated you had just referred to. I could not begin to tell you if others that have posted the appeals got theirs from mine or not as again, mine was the first posted so I don't know how much looking around folks have done for it. Frankly some of the sources you are wanting to use quotes from have not done much research on this because it has not been human translated. Are Italian language news sources acceptable?RoseMontague (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your personal docstoc page is not a reliable source. Italian news articles are. Please provide reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop asking for sources that have already been provided. He is quoting a passage from the scientists' letter, which I've linked to above.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Only Italian new articles are reliable? How interesting.Rose is just providing a translation of Raffaele's appeal. She is right it is not in any sense different than the translation of the Massei report. What are we supposed to do? Use an unreadable Google translation? Be sensible.PietroLegno (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarity. This letter [11] as reported in this source [12] should be used as a basis for extensive criticism of scientific evidence in the trial. But the fact that at least one [13] or possibly both [14] of the authors of the letter are working on the Knox campaign should not be mentioned. Does this not ring NPOV alarm bells with anyone? --FormerIP (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV alarm I hear is in your mischaracterization of the forensic specialists' roles.LedRush (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If individuals who take positions in our article are paid advocates of one side or the other that should be made clear. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that anyone is a paid advocate of anyone else. It's time for you to find some sources. If you've already provided the links, could you please show me where?LedRush (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your are misconstruing things as per usual Former IP. LedRush is exactly right. Elizabeth Johnson was recommended to the Knox and Mellas families and agreed to look at the DNA evidence in a pro bono capacity. No one--least of all Ms. Johnson--has ever attempted to conceal that fact. She found the DNA work "appalling" (yes I have a reliable source for those words) and shared the information with a number of experts representing some of the most respected labs we have in this country (CellMark for example). Hampikian was among those she shared information with and he ultimately agreed to became a formal consultant to the Knox defense. There is nothing remotely sinister or underhanded in this as you seem to imply. What don't you understand? PietroLegno (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"[Dr Hampikian] is currently working with the family of Amanda Knox, the American student jailed in Italy..."; "Elizabeth Johnson became involved on a pro bono basis after she was contacted by a Knox supporter". What am I supposed to be misrepresenting? I have no idea whether either of them are paid by the Knoxes, but that's neither here nor there. --FormerIP (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, seeing as Hipocrite misunderstood your position to be saying that they are paid, I don't think it's too much to think a reader will. If you'd like to say that those people are working with the Knox's though the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to overturning wrongful convictions through DNA evidence, somewhere else, that's fine. However, do we know that all 9 signatories work for the Innocence Project?LedRush (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this source [15], the letter was commissioned by the Friends of Amanda Campaign. It doesn't say if it was paid work, but it does say that some of the work done for the campaign is paid. Does no-one think any sort of clarification in our article would be appropriate? --FormerIP (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point to the specific quote: I'm just not seeing anything in there that says they were commissioned to do anything, and I son't see anything that even implies that they were paid. I did see someplace in the beginning where 10 scientists volunteered, but I don't even know that those are the same people who signed the letter. Also, it explicitly says that one of the experts was "an independent DNA expert".LedRush (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote is: "Elizabeth Johnson, an independent DNA expert in California, analyzed the report after being given a copy by Heavey, and came away appalled". That's Mike Heavey of the Friends of Amanda campaign. Johnson is a private forensic consultant [16], so she normally gives reports to people who pay her. She may have worked pro-bono, but the article refers to experts who "offered assistance for free or below cost", so she may also have been paid. It's irrelevant really, because the prestige of a big murder case is enough.

I can't appeal to anyone's sense of shame? --FormerIP (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing shameful here. I honestly can't comprehend what you think is unseemly here. Also, every time you've described the relationship, you've implied it is more insidious than any source reports. I just don't get it. I find it more of a conflict that the police get promotions for getting confessions, or that prosecutors get paid to people people in jail and are rated on their conviction rate. I expect people affiliated with a non-profit which tries to free wrongly convicted people based on DNA evidence to be coming to conclusions that are helpful to the defense: it their research didn't help the defendant, the non-profit would be focusing their time elsewhere.LedRush (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't have any information linking Johnson to anything non-profit. She's a private forensic consultant [17]. She wrote a letter criticising the Italian forensic results but she didn't do it independently, she was asked to by the Friends of Amanda Knox campaign. If I closed my eyes real tight and imagine what it would be like to be a neutral editor, I'm guessing that I might find the connection worth mentioning in the article. If I wasn't neutral, I might try to get away with fudging it so it's not very clear to the reader. But I don't think there's a scenario where I wouldn't mention it at all. --FormerIP (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know what you think is bad about this, or what you'd think to say. You make all these assumptions about one (or two) signatories to a letter. We have no evidence that she was paid by the Knox team. Also, I don't appreciate your repeated attacks, especially seeing as you are the one who has continually misrepresented secondary sources to fit your POV. How about this: you try and actually discuss what the sources say, and I will do the same.LedRush (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my butting in :) But maybe a neutral new person's perspective could be helpful here. I would think that it's standard to disclose relationships between quoted sources and the people or situations they're commenting on. Everyone knows that prosecutors get paid to try to get people convicted, so Wikipedia doesn't need to point that fact out, right? But if a quote about the case is made by someone who was hired or at least engaged by an advocacy group, why wouldn't you disclose that fact? Not because it's "sinister" or "insidious," just because it's relevant information.If this person is actually affiliated with the Innocence Project, disclose that fact; if she's actually in private practice and was engaged by a friend of the Knox family, why not disclose that fact, since as you say there's nothing sinister about the relationship anyway? Grebe39 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

At the time the letter was written, Johnson was not in the employ at all of the Knox-Mellas family. She agreed to look at the DNA evidence pro bono and call it as she saw it. She did not agree to try to present her analysis in a way that was favorable to Knox. The purpose of her work was to let the family know whether the DNA work was solid or whether it would be profitable to contest it. We have every reason to believe that had the DNA evidence appeared reliable to her she would have said so. She shared her information with a number of other highly qualified DNA experts--representing some of the most reputable labs in the U.S.--and they concurred with her assessment that the work was appalling. The letter was the product. None of the signatories--literally not one of them--was in any sense beholden to, or in the pay of, the Knox/Family family when the letter was written. It was their disinterested professional opinion pure and simple. In fact, having performed her neutral, pro bono, service Elizabeth Johnson appears to have quietly gone back to her own work. Greg Hampikian ultimately did become a consultant to the family and it is eminently fair to note that fact. The grave misrepresentation here is to suggest that Elizabeth Johnson's opinion was in any way for sale. PietroLegno (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of books about the case

The only book by a serious journalist^[disputed] (Barbara Nadeau "Angel Face") is some way down the list. The book most actively marketed on the web (Candace Dempsey "Murder in Italy") - written by an amateur blogger,^[disputed] is top of the list. Why is this? A book which certainly does not have a neutral point of view is being tacitly promoted by Wikipedia.^{[disputed - see Dempsey reply]} Why aren't the entries in alphabetical order of author surname. -Unsigned comment by 217.35.229.93 at 06:03, 26 March 2011

• It seems as if Demsey, the "blogger" was becoming a best-selling author, and I think she attended many of the trial hearings in Perugia, so she was also an eyewitness to the courtroom events and media circus. The list of books should have been in alpha order, so I have sorted it and embedded an internal comment "...alphabetical list by author..." to keep the list in alpha order. Thanks for noting that problem. -Wikid77 06:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the anonymous poster above honestly believe that "Angel Face" has a neutral point of view? Why does anonymous poster call Candace Dempsey an amateur blogger? While it is true that Candace is a blogger, she is also a respected journalist and author. Candace Dempsey's book is a Library Journal Bestseller and winner of Best True Crime 2010 Editor’s Choice and Reader’s Choice awards. It's time for everyone to put their personal feelings aside and see to it that the issues with this article are corrected. BruceFisher (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

More silly talk started this thread. Candace Dempsey's book is infinitely better than Nadeau's. The latter bragged about having written her wonder in a mere three weeks. It is error prone and nasty in tone, but, significantly, expresses more skepticism about the verdict than is generally known. Nadeau's tone has softened since then--a clear indication she understands the verdict is being undermined by events. Dempsey's book is the first of the well researched ones to come out. Her credentials as a writer and journalist were established long before this case. She went to Perugia, interviewed principals, and examined the whole trial record. Unlike the Nadeau book, Dempsey's Murder in Italy found a real publisher.PietroLegno (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Another point. Should Follain's book be listed now? As I understand it, the book is not published but announced for August. If we do include Follain, then we should also include Nina Burleigh's "The Fatal Gift of Beauty," also announced for August. Burleigh was the principal correspondent for Time Magazine and her crisp prose is a wonderful antidote to Follain's ham-handedness.PietroLegno (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to decide between Dempsey and Nadeau. On the one hand, Dempsey has a blog: "This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the PI." [18]. She also has a brilliant website, which used to be about Italian cooking before Novmember 2007 [19]. On the other hand, Nadeau writes for Newsweek [20]. So it's a tough call. Dempsey does seem more inclined to write everything as if Amanda Knox can't possibly be guilty though and, I agree, that is the same thing as saying that Nadeau is less neutral, so maybe Dempsey just has the edge. --FormerIP (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, you are letting your personal feelings come through very clearly. You don't like Candace Dempsey. We get it. Many journalists blog. There is nothing wrong with blogging. Candace Dempsey's blog was about Italian culture, not cooking. You are using talking points from hate sites online that have viciously attacked those who support Amanda Knox. You need to stop doing that and do some research. Candace Dempsey's blog has been featured on Newsweek.com and Anderson Cooper360. Candace is a respected journalist who has written an award winning book published by a major publisher. You have shown your inability to be neutral. You should limit yourself to the discussion and hold off on editing the article as I have done. Your attack on Candace shows the behavior that destroyed the Wikipedia article. It is time for neutral minds to correct those issues. BruceFisher (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly... I strongly believe we should remove the book list (and documentaries) entirely. Most Wikipedia articles should not have "Further reading" sections, which is basically all this is. If Wikipedia decides that a book is worth reading for insight on the topic, then it ought to be used as a source within the article multiple times and already be listed in the notes section. If something is not worth using as a source it is not worth listing separately, and especially not in such a way that it gets highlighted more than the actual sources used for the article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reading sections serve to give the reader information about where to find more information. What is listed in them should be things that give a thorough treatment of the subject beyond just being a source. Wikid77's alphabetizing of those materials is correct because it doesn't give preferential treatment to any being better than the other. Follain's book should not be listed until released per WP:CRYSTAL.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Dempsey reply about book

How bizarre to claim Ms. Nadeau is the only serious journalist to write a book about the Amanda Knox case. I'm Candace Dempsey, award-winning journalist and author of MURDER IN ITALY (Penguin/Berkley Books): The Shocking Slaying of a British Student, the Accused American Girl, and an International Scandal. Winner of Best True Crime Book 2010 Editor's and Reader's Choice awards, it is a Library Journal Bestseller and has been on Amazon's Top Ten True Crime List and #1 in Criminology. A carefully fact-checked and well-documented book, written over three years, vetted by an Italian lawyer at Penguin and a bilingual, Italian-American Penguin editor. Yes, I went to Italy often, yes, I was in the courtroom, yes, I have the court transcripts and access to the case files; yes, I covered the case from the beginning and continue to cover it now. Kudos to Mr. Wales for checking into Wikipedia's Meredith Kercher/Amanda Knox coverage. His willingness to cast sunshine on this controversial case is refreshing and impressive--in direct contrast to FormerIP's peculiar remarks about me above. Indeed, IP echoes comments made about me on the conspiracy theory sites PMF and TJMK. That I'm just a blogger, that I'm not a serious journalist. IP misrepresents my credentials by linking to a supposed "food blog" from my writer's Website , where I display my journalism awards, cite my master's degree in journalism, display my Chicago Tribune writing links, my business and travel-writing credits. I do have a fact-based, well-documented, high-profile seattlepi.com blog, which I created to explore my Italian-American fascination with Italian culture--writing about Italian language, travel, food, family roots, true crime. After a few months I switched exclusively to the Knox case. Now called "Let's Talk about True Crime," this seattlepi.com blog has been featured on Newsweek.com and Anderson Cooper 360. I've discussed the Amanda Knox case on Anderson Cooper 360, CNN Headline News and many other TV and radio shows. You can read MURDER IN ITALY's reviews on Amazon, where it enjoys a 4 star rating. Finally, I wonder about this remark by "ttrroonniicc" posted on the conspiracy theory site perugiamurderfile.net Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: XXII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JAN 22 -Perugiamurderfile.net "Raised the issue of book sequence on Wikipedia article / & book promotion, on the talk page. Sadly I realised that "Dempsey" is first in the list alphabetically of authors anyway Sure I said Dempsey is a "blogger" (a dig) -- but check the bias." CandaceDempsey (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Candace. I hope you don't think I'm criticising either you or your book. I don't know you and I haven't read your book. As I indicated above, from looking at the cover, it doesn't look very high-brow to me. But you are not working in the genre of philosophical treatises and many books not aimed at college professors can be excellently written. I have no reason to think yours is not. Besides which, what is it they always say we should never judge a book by?

I was responding, really, to comments preceding mine which compared your work with that of Barbie Nadeau in such a way that it was suggested that you were a highly experienced journalist whereas Nadeau was a bit more of a nobody who had rushed out her book, so it ought to be treated with scepticism. Now, I'm sure you're aware that Nadeau covered the case for Newsweek, has written a book and it the only American journalist to have attended court throughout the process. When I point out that your writing on the case consists, by comparison of a book and a personal blog (this is not meant as a criticism - I don't even have a blog), I am really trying to correct what appears to me to be an unfair comparison.

Recently, some material cited to Nadeau has been removed from the article on the grounds that it is not reliable, whereas material cited to you has been added. Given that it is not controversial to say that you and Nadeau are distinguished in that you take opposite views regarding the guilt of Amanda Knox, do you think this seems like a balanced approach? --FormerIP (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, nice try but your true feelings came out when you typed this lie: "She also has a brilliant website, which used to be about Italian cooking before Novmember 2007." Have you seen the cover of "Angel Face?" The title is written in what the author implies is Meredith Kercher's blood. Do you think that cover is "high-brow?" Let's stop describing book covers and let's get to the point. You made an effort to smear Candace Dempsey and you failed. In doing so you exposed your bias. You need to step back from editing this article. BruceFisher (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article for weeks and I agree. For now, you've won, Bruce, and there's no point in attempting to improve the article. --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, This is not about you or me. This is about making sure the honest facts are presented in the Wikipedia article. I am hopeful that improvements will be made soon. BruceFisher (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

When you said I need to step back from the article, I made the mistake of assuming that was about me. My mistake. --FormerIP (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting a strange impression of Wikipedia editing on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Former IP, after admitting here that he hasn't read my book, was then able to call it "inaccurate" and less credible than Angel Face on the conspiracy site perugiamurdefile.net where he goes by the name ttrroonniicc. And this person is seen as a neutral editor here? Interesting. His words: "Update on the spat I appear to have started on the Wikipedia article talk -- Candace Dempsey herself appears. Won't get into it. Finding it "quantum" to have caused It .... on and on it goes: Article has become extremely sensitive because of the press coverage due to the intervention of Jimmy Wales. I hope he reads the more credible Nadeau book before the Dempsey one. Yes mine was a "dig" but we KNOW Nadeau is a more credible journalist than Dempsey. Dempseys book is sensationalist -- factually inaccurate -- highly promoted - right down to the bargain bucket at Walmart." CandaceDempsey CandaceDempsey (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Will it be okay if I also accuse you of being someone else, Candace? I really don't think you should get drawn into a Wikipedia debate about the merits of your book. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Particularly with an editor so omniscient he's able to compare and contrast it to others without even having read it first. Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.194.157 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The book included in the article that I do not believe belongs there

is Amanda e gli altri. Amanda sued and won over this book (covered in the civil section of the article). But we are not going to allow a book from Dr. Waterbury or Bruce Fisher? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmandaKnox/small-victory-amanda-knox/story?id=10169888 BTW, Barbie Nadeau has a cookbook on her resume and I still think her book should be listed.RoseMontague (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Candace Dempsey: I am "ttrroonniicc" not "FormerIP" ... normally Wikipedia automatically creates a UTC/IP stamp which identifies on repeat postings. For some reason this time it did not. I often post Wikipedia comments and like the convenience of not having to log in. I do not post on main articles. The only thing I posted is the column heading here "List of books related to the case" followed by one paragraph. Further to that I have not been involved in discussion. Also Candace, www.perugiamurderfile.net is the long standing discussion forum about the case derived from a section on Steve Huff's "True Crime" website, which generated much interest in 2008. It is not as you describe a "conspiracy theory" website. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.229.93 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

ttrroonniicc, I understand this is not the place for this discussion but please clarify for me how perugiamurderfile.net is a long standing discussion forum. It has existed for less than a week. It looks like you copied a "long standing discussion" from somewhere else. Anyway, not really expecting an honest answer to that mess you are a part of. Back to the topic at hand. I think it has been established that Candace Dempsey is a journalist and an author published with a major publisher. She meets Wikipedia's standards. BruceFisher (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Wikipedia's standards have dropped a little recently. But, yes, there is no doubt that she is a published author and can be cited in Wikipedia. No-one has suggested otherwise. The problem is the removal of material cited to a more authoritative author on the grounds that the source is not reliable, and instead inserting more material from a partisan less significant source. --FormerIP (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What "more authoritative author" is there? Certainly not Nadeau, who has less professional experience and whose book was published by a blog site. All of the existing sources are partisan, so if you are claiming Nadeau's is not you are sadly mistaken. We certainly have to have some balance sources, and I'm not saying Nadeau cannot be used at all, but your argument above sounds like choosing to believe someone isn't a good source solely because you disagree with her conclusions, because the factual claims in your argument do not match up with real world facts. DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If the user is indeed Dempsey they just showed us first hand how much weight they put on research before making false accusations and thus should be handled with great care.TMCk (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you go to perugiamurderfile.net you will see that "ttrroonniicc" basically suggested that he was "FormerIP." I am not saying who is who. I know people can pretend to be anyone on the Internet. All I am saying is that "ttrroonniicc" gave the impression that he was "FormerIP." I think the smear campaign against Candace Dempsey can stop now. Those involved put up their best effort and failed. Once again, Candace Dempsey is a respected journalist and an author published with a major publisher. She meets Wikipedia's standards. BruceFisher (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not suggest that. "Bruce Fisher" -- perugiamurderfile.net is the original forum run by the original moderator. perugiamurderfile.org is a renegade split. What's the point of posting here the place has been "flashmobbed" by people who post on behalf of the "Friends of Amanda" interest group. Impartiality is lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.229.93 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What smear campaign? I made a factual observation which still stands regardless of her reputation (in which I have no interest what-so-ever, discussing or else).TMCk (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"If you go to perugiamurderfile.net you will see that 'ttrroonniicc' basically suggested that he was 'FormerIP.' I am not saying who is who." You seem to contradict yourself quite often, if you don't me saying so. If some parties back down from this so-called "smear campaign", would you perhaps be willing to put an end to issuing commands such as "You need to step back from editing this article" (to FormerIP above)? Given your declared conflict of interest, I don't think that indulging in uncivil conduct of that sort so soon is really a wise decision. Regards, SuperMarioMan 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan, I am not here to cause any conflict. I simply pointed out facts. FormerIP already admitted bias and stated that he/she would step back from editing the article. It was FormerIP that posted false information about Candace Dempsey. In fact the statement from FormerIP about Candace Dempsey's blog repeated a tired talking point from two websites that repeatedly attack Candace. When I called FormerIP on that fact, FormerIP stated that he/she had not edited in weeks and saw no reason to try and improve the article any further. This implied to me that FormerIP no longer intended to edit. I saw that you took a little jab at me when you wrote this: "You seem to contradict yourself quite often." Please list any instances that I have contradicted myself. If you read what I wrote, I said that 'ttrroonniicc' basically suggested that he was 'FormerIP. I did not come to that conclusion myself. Once again, Candace Dempsey is a respected journalist and an author published with a major publisher. She meets Wikipedia's standards. That fact has been confirmed in this conversation. I really don't know what else there is to discuss. Do you have objections to the conclusions drawn from this conversation? BruceFisher (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, can you please offer a quote where ttrroonniicc suggested that he was me. I rather think this is just evidence of Candace, as a seasoned investigative reporter, coming to a conclusion about something without any evidence or thought. I'll withdraw that if I can be shown to be wrong. --FormerIP (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"FormerIP already admitted bias and stated that he/she would step back from editing the article." I read it as a mildly sarcastic response to bad-faith remarks that included accusations of lies, smears and bias. "It was FormerIP that posted false information about Candace Dempsey." This excerpt from an earlier comment, referring to FormerIP, also seems to offer "false" and unsubstantiated information: "You are using talking points from hate sites online that have viciously attacked those who support Amanda Knox. You need to stop doing that and do some research." Wikipedians tend to frown on drastic ultimata of that sort. On "contradiction", I believe that I was referring to the fact that on the one hand, in a previous post, you claimed to "respect Wikipedia's guidelines completely", yet on the other you have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the concept of polite and collegial editing that governs this encyclopaedia. I would also strongly urge you to read through guidelines set out at WP:POVPUSH. With this response, I agree that there is nothing more to discuss here. Regards, SuperMarioMan 00:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Your response is a great example of all that has gone wrong with this article. You have chosen to ignore the entire basis of the conversation. The conversation revolved around the credibility of Candace Dempsey. If you didn't see FormerIP's attempt to smear her then I would ask that you go back and read the text again. You side tracked the allegation that I contradict myself often. It appears that you realized that I had not contradicted myself when describing ttrroonniicc and FormerIP after all so you decided to bring in the Wikipedia guidelines. You also neglected to answer my question. I asked you if you agreed with the conclusions drawn by the conversation here. Do you view Candace Dempsey as a credible? I am sure there is a guideline that says you are not obligated to answer any questions. I think we are both adults and are perfectly capable of having a civil conversation. I agree with you that my language could have been more polite in one sentence above. I apologize for that. I will reword it here. FormerIP repeated talking points from hate sites that attack Candace Dempsey on a regular basis. I would kindly ask that FormerIp refrain from using that language when describing a respected journalist. BruceFisher (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the guideline that you suggested I familiarize myself with applies to articles and generally does not apply to the talk pages. This comes directly from the "WP:POVPUSH" page: "The term POV-pushing is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular POV in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions." I would also like to point out that I believe your post is a form of baiting. You are aware that this conversation has reached a conclusion. It was proven that Candace Dempsey is credible. Instead of leaving it be you seem to be attempting to get me to lash out. I am sure you are aware that baiting is frowned on by Wikipedians. I have no intention at taking the bait. I am not angry. I am very pleased that this article is receiving the attention it needs. BruceFisher (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the posters on this page, Candace is as credible as anyone who writes a book and gets it published. History has always been written with the slant of the writer. Just because the book won awards - does not make it a 'credible source' - it was awarded as a book. It is not an encyclopaedia entry and I doubt that her editors were interested in anything more than her writing. She was free to take artistic liberty in presenting the facts to her liking and fair enough - its her book. But that is exactly the point, she is an avid Knox supporter and that needs to be noted - readers need to be aware of the writer as not everything in black and white is 'objective fact'. (Giselle 08:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

• The trouble began at the top of this topic (#List of books about the case), initiated by 217.35.229.93 at 06:03, 26 March 2011, who posted on the next day, from the same IP, self-identifying as "ttrroonniicc" (from the blog website mentioned above). That initial comment was not auto-signed, so I now retro-signed that comment, as dated. -Wikid77 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Arrest of Guede

This section doesn't mention how the police connected Guede with the crime. Can we at least give our readers a clue? --Footwarrior (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be far more than a clue. He's the one person who sides can agree was involved in the murder, and he should get more detailed coverage than he currently does. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think the key phrase in his prior arrests is the term "booked" (or "booking") as used in source ""School Owner Testifies in Knox Trial That Convicted Killer Stole" (ABC News, 27 June 2009). It might be difficult to match any source to the phrases "charged with breaking and entering" or "charged with theft" or "charged with concealing a deadly weapon" whereas sources use the word "booked" (or "booking") before he was released from police custody in Milan on October 27, 2007. It is my understanding that his fingerprints and hand-prints were also on file due to investigation of his identity some years earlier? Also, the article needs to add a few more words to explain why a man convicted of both sexual assault and murder gets a sentence reduction from 30 years to only 16 years. Many readers have asked about that in other discussions, so there needs to be answer which seems very objective in the wording. However, I am not requesting that the same person edit the article to make both additions, nor add the text during the same day. -Wikid77 17:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Guede was connected to the case through a finger print they had on file. Once they had him in focus they were able to establish that his DNA and hand and shoe prints were there as well. These details are available and can be checked. The bigger question is how much to get into Guede. I believe we have to do a fair amount because part of the defense is that the theory that Guede acted alone is far more plausible than the theory that three people committed the murder. Steve Moore finds it utterly incomprehensible that anyone would think anyone other than Guede was involved. I would say that, at a minimum, we need to discuss the following about Guede: 1) How he was identified and arrested; 2) the nature of the evidence against him; 3) his record of arrests in the 30 or so days before the murder; 4) the rather astonishing similarities between his previous break-ins and the break-in here; 4) his conflicting stories and testimony; and 5) his sentence and sentence reduction. There are sources that are reliable for all of this, so it is just a question of agreeing on scope. PietroLegno (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudy was an immigrant and all immigrants are required to register at the local police station (Questura) and provide photo and fingerprints. My understanding is that he was picked up several times but never charged with burglary and his motivations report states that he did not have a criminal record. It is strange that even the Massei report contains references to his past break ins as if they were proven crimes.74.236.137.78 (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here, but since no one else has pointed this out, I will. It's not true that all sides agree that Rudy Guede was involved in the murder; Rudy Guede has never admitted this. He has admitted being at the scene but not being involved in the murder.Grebe39 (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Guede being matched to the bloody handprint on the victim's pillow. --Footwarrior (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

civil or criminal?

According to several news sources, Knox' parents are being "sued" by the police for libel. Indeed, libel generally falls under the civil category. However, other news sources are saying that they have been "indicted." Normally, this term is not used in civil cases. So I'm a little confused: are her parents facing civil or criminal charges? Or does the Italian court system make no distinction between the two? --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• This question was answered weeks ago (but I could not find it when searching the talk-page archives), as being a particular form of criminal slander (named by a single Italian word) rather than printed "libel" and punishable with up to 3 years in prison. I found a WSJ.com article reporting as slander during the 2008 interview: "Italian Judge Indicts Amanda Knox's Parents - WSJ.com" according to ANSA. To find reports in other WP:Reliable sources, hunt in search-engines for: Perugia parents face "three years". If we find the Italian word, then that could be stated in the article as a more definitive charge. -Wikid77 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the word I have seen used is calumnia and I read the meaning in this context as accusing someone of a crime that you know is innocent.RoseMontague (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Kercher DNA

In this edit, User:LedRush wrote: "everyone agrees that Kercher's DNA was on the knife...the issue is the defense says it was from contamination; Please don't revert...rewrite it."

Let's ignore that I was the one who already rewrote it and got reverted for my trouble so the warning was backward, the fact of the matter is that it is NOT agreed upon that Kercher's DNA was on the knife.

First off, this should be self-evident if you think about how the DNA testing works: a sample is removed from knife, samples taken from other locations (including samples of confirmed Knox, Kercher and Sollecito DNA), tests are done on sample. Any potential contamination of Kercher's DNA would have happened in the lab on the sample and not on the knife.

(This is different from the question of Sollecitor's DNA on the bra clasp, as that was in the house Kercher lived in and uncollected for many days getting kicked around and very easily contaminated there. But I don't believe anyone has ruled out that that could have been contamination in the lab also.)

Second, based upon the kind of test done being experimental and something the scientist who performed it had no training on, I believe some experts maintain that there never was any Kercher DNA on the knife or the sample taken from the knife, and that the expert was simply in error.

I respectfully suggest that User:LedRush self-revert. One way or another it will have to be removed, as it is extremely biased for this article to state it is a fact that her DNA was on this knife, and it would be nice for him to admit his error and fix it himself instead of forcing someone else to do it for him. DreamGuy (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that all sources agree that the judge says that Kercher's DNA was on the knife. Also, I've seen many other sources that say that Kercher's DNA was on the knife. I have also seen many sources which state that the defense has argued that the DNA on the knife was there from contamination (see above in a discussion with Former IP). Can you please provide sources which state that the defense states that Kercher's DNA is not on the knife (not that it was there because of contamination). Perhaps you are right about how contamination occurs, but we need a source that says it.

What about appeal documents?

So you know, Former IP argued for the exclusion of defense arguments on this in the past, and is currently trying to find evidence that DNA experts who have disputed the quality of the Italian Court's finding are mere Knox lackeys. Perhaps you would like to get involved in that discussion as I believe that is where the defense and prosecution/judge arguments are really being made.LedRush (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not currently trying to find any evidence. I've found the source that says that a letter, which has been referred to in the article as if it was independently authored, was actually written at the request of Friends of Amanda Knox [21]. I haven't looked at recent versions of the article. But I'm very reassured that so may editors have been stressing that all they care about is producing a balanced article that gives fair coverage to all sides of this case. So, I'm assuming the information will already have been added. Am I to take it that it hasn't? --FormerIP (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as your source doesn't actually say what you say it does, and actually implies that what you're saying is completely wrong, I think you should try and find more (read: any) evidence of what you're saying. But that's besides the point here. DreamGuy wants to say that there is a disagreement about whether ANY DNA from Kercher was found on the knife. Everything I've seen says that both sides agree that there was DNA, but one side argues that it was so minuscule it should not be used as a reliable indication and that it probably came from contamination.LedRush (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you guys own the article now, so it's up to you. --FormerIP (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps keep knife text simple until DNA testimony in May 2011: Reports state the knife DNA will be re-examined by a university in Rome, with results by the end of April 2011, so maybe the exact text could wait until then, with a few days to consider multiple sources. At that time, a ruling to dismantle the knife handle might be decided, as basis for further text. -Wikid77 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

But I can't find any sources which say that no DNA (from Kercher) was found on the knife.LedRush (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is very hard to get a handle on this because the reporting at the time was bad. The arguments seem to have been over the heads of many reporters. Adding to this, the police and prosecution have apparently not released all of the electronic data files needed for analysis. I believe Dreamguy has it right here but part of the reason I believe this is that there is abundant material written on low template analysis (LCN) for a lay audience and I made this a point of study. There are two problems with saying that Kercher's DNA was "on the knife" 1) the process that produced the electropherogram was enormously flawed; therefore the prosecution is not entitled to say this is Kercher's DNA in fact; and 2)the DNA is Kercher's but it was never "on the knife"--what the machine read was residual contamination from previous runs. I will see what I can do to source this properly, distinguishing what was said at trial, what is said in the appeals, and what has been said by outside experts who have been critical of the claims. Both Mark Waterbury (in the book The Monster of Perugia) and Chris Halkides (in his blog The View from Wilmington) discuss all this at length. I believe they are reliable because both have the academic and work experience needed to comment on these issues and both base what they say on the work of acknowledged experts. That is, both have functioned as good journalists or good academics would. Finally, having said all of this, I have considerable sympathy with Wikid77's suggestion that we keep it simple until the experts report in May. They have been brought in to referee the dispute on DNA issues. I note with interest that there are already stories being written that say that these experts will say that Stefanoni's work does not support the conviction. But these are based on leaks out of Sapienza University. We may be best advised to wait.PietroLegno (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The future testing is irrelevant to the data now. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball - besides, who can say that there's still another cell or two left to be tested? More to the point, the case is viewed by some as an indictment of the Italian judicial system, and those issues hinge on what has been done already. It's important just to cover what everyone did, what the results were, and how these were criticized by other notable forensic authorities. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Some people are clearly missing sight of the issue here. Someone above is saying they can't find a source that says no Kercher DNA was found on the knife. The prosecution has said there was. The defense has not said they agree with it, and there's no reason why they would until they are allowed to have their own experts look at it, which is the whole point of a major part of the appeal process. In order for Wikipedia to say her DNA was found on the knife, you *need* sources from both sides saying that. Real sources, not that your recollection is that they haven't argued against it. The whole point of having the DNA retested is so they can then make an informed legal argument about it one way or the other. Having the article claiming something as a fact requires that the prosecution and the defense (and, hell, outside observers of note as well) agree to it. The outside DNA experts clearly dispute it. The wording needs to be as neutral as possible, and even if the defense later decides to admit the blood was on the knife, saying that the prosecution argued it was there is still accurate. It is therefore the more accurate, undisputed and NPOV wording this article needs. This is pretty basic WP:NPOV policy here, and I don't get why people don't understand. DreamGuy (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As the evidence stands today, the DNA of Meredith Kercher was found on the knife confiscated from the house of Sollecito. This is the ruling of the court and should be considered an objective point of view and a valid reference for all intents and purposes. However, in order to highlight the non-agreement of defence and prosecution on this matter it should be clearly identified as being reviewed on appeal with references to possible contamination issues. I think we can safely assume that anyone who reads the wiki page is intelligent enough to comprehend this and infer what they will from it. (Giselle 08:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

It is an item of evidence admitted by the prosecution and accepted by the judge. The defense contests it in ________ (these) ways. That would be a neutral way of putting it. Saying it is objective, because the judge ruled it, doesn't work, since there is reason to doubt the ruling. On what grounds is it "objective"? How does it go that far? It doesn't. Both those points - the prosecution's inclusion/judge's ruling and the defense rebuttal - would be pretty easy to cite in the article, wouldn't it? It has been widely reported on, including the reasons that exist for doubt. The article should convey those events to the readers. If anyone needs a further reason, there is the fact that the trial is its first appeal and in the Italian system, a defendant is not considered convicted until the final (second) appeal. The methods/styles of the trial stages even reflect this, it has been reported. Pieces of contested evidence should not be called fact or objective, especially while the case has not even closed yet. All sides are still weighing in before different judges in different kinds of courts. Perk10 (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10

A court is by definition objective and takes no sides - of course in the real world things may be different - but I see your point and your "It is an item of evidence admitted by the prosecution and accepted by the judge. The defense contests it in ________ (these) ways." seems like a balanced way to present the notion, except that it should read "accepted by the judge and jury of peers" - since it is ultimately the jury who decide on the validity of evidence based on the testimony of experts (without getting too technical on legal procedures). --Giselle 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

It is the court's job to be impartial, however a court is fallible. It can make mistakes or deviate intentionally from objective rulings. A court can commit an error, crime, or blunder just like anyone else. Perk10 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Knox's appeal jurors are ALLOWED to read this article

I read something I never knew at Time - apparently the "citizen judges" who will decide the Knox appeal are allowed, even encouraged to read news articles about the case. Since Wikipedia offers (or should offer) an especially comprehensive coverage of the case, this means that the arguments here may contribute directly to the final verdict. This makes it clearer why this article is heating up, and will continue to do so; and the same might be true of other Italian court cases such as the Berlesconi allegations.

While Wikipedia cannot and should not be a courtroom, this should emphasize to all participants the importance of putting aside factional differences and working together to seriously record all the facts and opinions available, to the smallest detail, responsibly, without distorting anything or covering anything up. Wikipedia should aim for articles useful for all kinds of readers, not just dilettantes but legal scholars and citizen activists and, in this case, jurors! Wnt (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. They are far more likely to read the italian version.©Geni 08:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

V::::For what it is worth, an Italian friend tells me the Italian version is even worse is terms of pro-guilt bias than this one is. Also, a former editor and administrator here were openly discussing the need to keep the slanted version they created here in order to preserve its propaganda (my word) value during the appeal. Having said this, I do not worry about it much. The jury is comprised of two professional judges and six citizen judges. Under the rules, the citizen judges could in theory outvote the trial judge and his assistant. In practice, this is very unlikely. The verdict when it comes will be what the trial judge and his assistant think is proper. I sincerely doubt that after having read all of the appeals and reports and listened to all the testimony that they will be swayed by Wikipedia. PietroLegno (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The jurors are allowed to read the news, discuss the case and listen to opinions of others outside the courtroom. However, by Italian law, the jury must document its reasoning for arriving at whatever verdict it chooses. Hence we have the Massei Report. If any of the 'hearsay' influences their reasoning - which will appear in the report - this will be a strong point for appeal and overturning the verdict. So we need not worry too much about the Italian jury - they have their system, it works for them and I dont think wiki will sway them one way or another. They get the facts first hand in court. (Giselle 08:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

Kercher DNA 2

I wanted to comment on the Kercher DNA question but it now says that the section does not exist? I had posted an article earlier that contained this quote regarding LCN DNA: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10408000 "British analysts were puzzled when the new technique turned up the same DNA profile from samples taken from the scenes of three very different types of crimes. The prospect of it being the DNA fingerprint of a most versatile criminal was extinguished when it proved to be the DNA of an employee of the German manufacturer of a piece of equipment used by the scientists." Machine or equipment contamination is a definite possibility when dealing with LCN DNA. The same machine used to test the "alleged" DNA on the knife was used to test many other samples containing Kercher's DNA. The appeals cover it this way: Track B allegedly found on the blade of the find proved 36 <<tooLow>> (low - too low) and also turned out not to be blood."

"The literal meaning of the reported about the track B is not leaves room for doubt on the basis of information provided by machinery used for quantification at trace B of finding 36 there was no DNA or other DNA found was not sufficient for a subsequent amplification."

"R - I think that should stop the investigation, analysis ....Because if quantity is too low in this still could be microliter zero, too low means that below 10 picograms could DNA also does not exist>> (September 14, 2009 hearing transcript, p.. 46)."

My reading of the appeals show that they refer to this as the "alleged discovery profile of Meredith Kercher on the blade of the knife". I do not believe that the defense has conceded at what point contamination occurred. The material taken from the knife could have contained no DNA whatsoever and after cranking the volume up 9 times the reading could have been from just a few picograms of DNA that got on the sample in the handling of the sample or in the equipment used with the sample that had also been used on previous samples. RoseMontague (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Edit away.LedRush (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Article could explain contamination scenarios: The way I was thinking, the contamination could be explained in the following manner. The lab analysts start with a tiny sample (4 cells?) from the knife, as "sample" then with all-things-Kercher in the lab, there might be, somewhere, other Kercher DNA as the "CONTAMINATION". Hence, when the two are combined, as mixed in with the tiny sample, then the total result becomes: "CONTAMINATION+sample". Consequently, the combined amount would show in tests to be mainly a sample of Contamination, mainly the Kercher DNA. Some questions to answer are:  Was the knife tested in the same lab as other Kercher property, or in a totally separate lab, far away? Does the test of, perhaps 4 cells, have a way of measuring the potential count of cells which cause RFU peaks (RFU is relative fluoresence units), such as, "Hey, these are peaks from 20 cells, not 4? Is the level of contamination "unprovable" at such low levels, in other words, do scientists conclude there is no way to exclude contamination? Is it like trying to prove which child in a classroom full of sniffling kids spread a cold to a particular child? If that information is known, then the article text can be updated with those issues in mind. -Wikid77 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the article would list a whole slew of scenarios which could have led to contamination. We have the Massei report for the prosecutions opinion, and the American DNA experts for another view. That should be enough.LedRush (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The American DNA experts linked to the Free Amanda campaign, do you mean? --FormerIP (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have apoint by making this claim over and over? Of course any scientists who made such a statement would later decide to support Knox's family: because based upon their scientific conclusions they believe a great miscarriage of justice happened. If they cared enough to make that statement in the first place they would then support the family. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this source would be considered reliable, at least as an indicator that the DNA evidence was considered controversial: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427373.600-knox-murder-trial-evidence-flawed-say-dna-experts-.html New Scientist is one of the most respected magazines in the world and would not publish an article like this if the editors were not convinced that the arguments in it had some merit and were from reliable sources. I read the full article at the time on paper. To access it online a subscription is required but I believe that Mr Wales may be able to arrange this. NigelPScott (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. I believe the term Low Copy Number DNA should be referenced here. As in: "The defense is claiming that the alleged DNA on the knife blade attributed to Kercher is Low Copy Number and as proper testing procedures were not followed that result could be due to contamination." Then a link to the AK appeal part I quoted earlier discussing the procedures that were not followed. Link to the Italian as I see the Massei report linked that way in the article listing the page number of the following quote: "In particular, the protocols cited recommend the following precautions for the correct interpretation of genetic profiles of small quantities of genetic material:

Amplification of extracts in these cases must be conducted at least

duplicate;

A particular allele in the genetic profile should be given final

only if identified in at least two different experiments;

The concentration of the sample is not recommended;

The minimum height for the interpretation of an allele is 50 RFU.

None of the information given was respected by geneticist Police

Scientific."RoseMontague (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely vital to have secondary sources to cite for any discussions of contamination. Disputes between experts are the sort of thing we can't use even good primary sources to settle on our own. Wnt (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We definitely need a little more explanation of the DNA controversy. The tiny little sentence in there about the group of scientific experts finding flaws is confusing to the average reader, and it not being expanded in any detail gives the impression that it's a very minor controversy. Experts from around the world have said similar things. To turn FormerIP's argument around, the only people making claims about the DNA being conclusive are linked to the prosecution, and the lead investigator of the case has had her credentials questioned. We can't have balance by having the bulk of the article represent only prosecution claims. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If other groups contest the DNA evidence, let's explain that and cite to them. If they are paid by Knox, of course, that will need to be clearly indicated.LedRush (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out a distinction that I think is important in regards to the above statement by LedRush. It would not be on the merits of payment that the results would be credible, whether or not anyone received any payment. If any expert skewed their results for payment, that would be a violation of ethics. None have intended to breach their careers to investigate the testing. Results are results and any compromising circumstances would be the exception to valid work. Is there any reason to have suspicion toward them? Those are heavy implications that seem unmerited and baseless. On the other hand, since the results challenge the results of the prosecution, perhaps the results cast a question in that direction. It is why independent testing and the perspective of independent experts are so important (and transparency of their scientific process). A party seeking an independent review does not take the experts out of the category of being independent. The distinction I wanted to make is between objective, valid results and any kind of payment. (I don't know if anyone was actually paid for investigating.) The article should not try to blur or obscure that distinction, since that would be NPOV. Perk10 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Cited order of protagonists

Rudy Guede was found to be the lesser of the three protagonists. But he is cited first throughout the article. Why is this? The primary protagonist -- found to have inflicted the major, fatal wound onto Meredith Kercher is Amanda Knox. 217.35.229.93 (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the only reason for this sequence is that Guede's conviction came first due to him electing a fast track trial. Therefore I think it should/should stay as is in the body but am not opposed to a change within the lead, starting with Knox/Solecito and then Guede.TMCk (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting Knox first all the time would be a nice compromise gesture in relation to the question of whether she should get her own article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction to my previous post: The "People charged with the murder" section should be rearranged starting with Knox and ending with Guede.And FormerIP, that remark was nasty.TMCk (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But she's the most important figure in the story, surely? You wouldn't put Ringo first in a list of Beatles, after all... --FormerIP (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say your conclusion is wrong.TMCk (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, the current order broadly reflects the timeline of events; on the other, I agree with the IP editor on the question of prominence. It would be difficult to argue against the assertion that of the three imprisoned, Knox has the greatest coverage - quite a strong argument in favour of a separate biography for her, but that's another story. SuperMarioMan 22:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the order in which arrests were made or charges were filed. I think Knox deserves her own article, but this isn't a matter of "prominence", but simply finding space to elaborate all the facts. That article, as previewed in the User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox draft, is the appropriate place for information about the civil suits over book rights, the criminal libel charges against the parents, and such things. This article should explain the investigation of the murder step by step, with as few flashbacks and foreshadowings as possible. Wnt (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the order in which arrests were made or charges were filed. That would be in the order Knox, Sollecito, (Lumumba), Guede. --FormerIP (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right! Which suggests that the phrase in the article describing Lumumba as "the man originally accused of murdering Kercher" should be altered, by the way. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No that's not right. He was the first person to be accused of the murder. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's something we should get clear: date and time of arrest and of charging, for everyone arrested or charged. Just one of those basic details that clears up how the police went about things. Wnt (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Found to be the lesser"? By whom? In the report attached to Knox's conviction, Guede is deemed to be the instigator of the crime. Knox is deemed to have spontaneously decided to help Guede commit the murder, rather than, at that time (as one might expect), come to the aid of her roommate. According to the report, her actions were done without malice to the victim.67.21.194.157 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And of course the report is the opinion of the guilty side, the innocent side disputes all of that as well. Both sides make Guede the prime (or only) killer. DreamGuy (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The comments by 217.35.229.93 and FormerIP show a pretty twisted understanding of both the facts and WP:NPOV policy. Claiming Knox as most important to the case and suggesting she get even more text suggesting she was the primary killer when it is highly disputed that she killed anyone at all is absurd. Guede was both the first to go trial, the first convicted, the one with the strongest evidence against him, and also the one the least controversy surrounds in his verdict. DreamGuy (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Twisted, eh? --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What is this trying to say?

Civil lawsuit filed by Kercher's family

Kercher's family filed a civil suit against anyone found guilty of the murder. The court awarded a sum of €1,000,000 to each of the parents and €800,000 to each of Kercher's siblings.

Were there two separate court cases (1) the family suit, and (2) the murder case? It's not clear. Moriori (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The cases were combined, as apparently is common in Italian law. http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-civil-trial/story?id=9191557&page=1Grebe39 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Support for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

• This section currently only lists the Knox Family and Maria Cantwell. The family almost doesn't count because they are the family after all and should be removed. Maria Cantwell's portion deserves a few lines but in my opinion is too long. What is completely missing is the support sites that have developed of people working against what they see as a wrongful conviction. I think this area should include the support sites 'Friends of Amanda Knox', 'Injustice in Perugia' and 'raffaelesollecito.org'. It should also list notable individual supporters like FBI agent Steve Moore, Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry, FBI profiler John Douglas, Innocence project's Dr. Greg Hampikian, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, Dr David Anderson, author Douglas Preston, anchor Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump. I probably missed some.Issymo (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• That sounds good, but I would limit it to about 20 entries (based on the idea of a bar chart limited to 20 bars for the average attention span. However, if that limit seems excessive, then perhaps divide the list into some groups of related professions, or such. -Wikid77 07:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• To keep things sane, you should probably only mention the supporter organizations that have gained coverage in some unaffiliated source, and cite those sources. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag moved to /NPOV

I have rescued the archived topic "NPOV tag" and placed it into new subpage "/NPOV". As happened several times last year, someone lowered this talk-page's auto-archive limit to just 3 days, and Miszabot removed the section "NPOV tag" which was to remain as a long-term WP:NPOV dispute. The full talk-subpage is:

• Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/NPOV#NPOV tag

Using subpages of a talk-page can avoid the auto-archiving of topics, typically triggered when no one has responded in several days, such as often happens in a long-term discussion of WP:NPOV issues. -Wikid77 07:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding photos and images

It took me months to find an "iconic image" of Amanda Knox, the photo hung in the Perugia police station, as a photo famous for being a specific photo, rather than noted for what is in the photo:

• File:Amanda Knox blue sweater Perugia police.jpg

That photo can be shown only in articles (not talk-pages) which have been listed with a {{Non-free use rationale}} for each article needing to use that photo. In general, it is extremely difficult to find a news photo which is considered "iconic" and can be used only because the photo itself is famous (as perhaps because of the photographer) or in this case, where the photo was displayed, as noted in news articles. If anyone, or friends, plan to visit Perugia and can take some photographs, then those can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use in both talk-pages as well as articles. -Wikid77 07:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• That photo of Amanda Knox (talking with police officers) was quickly deleted, as well, due to extremely severe restrictions, which might require more expertise to resolve. International copyright laws are just not as difficult to understand, as getting people to stop deleting a fair-use photo. The reason(s) for deleting the photo remain on the talk-page of the deleted image:

• File_talk:Amanda Knox blue sweater Perugia police.jpg

Over the past few years, fair-use images have not been this difficult to defend, so perhaps there is some increased legal scrutiny now. Hence, the tendency might be to "delete first, ask real questions later" where the image could be re-created after a period of prior discussion to alleviate unfounded fears. Talk about an ageing bureaucracy with numerous, endless bureaucratic restrictions. I think perhaps the best bet is to contact some "wiki-bureau of image licensing" to complete the necessary paperwork ("in triplicate") to authorize typical use of an iconic image posted in a police station. Otherwise, free images, if available, are the easy route. -Wikid77 09:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your frustration. Still, haven't Amanda Knox's family members or lawyers issued any press releases with pictures? Wnt (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudy sentencing/Number of years

The article states Rudy "was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher and received a reduced sentence of 16 years after an appeal. Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student who shared a flat with Kercher, were convicted of sexual assault and murder. Sollecito was sentenced to 25 years in prison, and Knox was sentenced to 26 years." This is misleading for several reasons. In the first trial Rudy received a 30 year sentence (as quoted in the Micheli Motivation report). Because he elected the "Fast Track" trial he gets an automatic one-third reduction in time served (from 30 to 20). At his appeal (as quoted in the Borsini Motivation report) his overall sentence was reduced from 30 to 24 years, the 6 year reduction due to mitigating factors as listed in the Borsini Motivation (rough childhood and no criminal record). The 16 years he will actually serve is due to again the automatic one-third reduction for electing the Fast Track trial (24 years reduced by one-third to 16 years). In reality, Rudy got the same mitigating factors in his first appeal that Amanda and Raffaele got in the regular (first) trial. The maximum of 30 years was reduced to 24 (for the main charge) due to mitigating factors. The additional one or two years is due to the other charges against Raffaele and Amanda and not the main murder charge. (IIRC Amanda and Raffaele got a burglary conviction and Raffaele did not-I know that sounds crazy-and Amanda had some other charges as well). Mignini is appealing this reduction that Amanda and Raffaele got in the first trial.RoseMontague (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I know, everything you said is accurate. I don't think the current text is bad, but if you have secondary sources and don't overkill the article with details, add it in.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not sourced now and at the present time there is only one primary source for the Borsini Motivation and no secondary. I think it should be edited to read sentenced to 30 years and reduced to 24 years at first appeal and will serve only 16 years due to the nature of the Fast Track trial that he elected giving him an automatic one-third reduction. I am not going to do any edits here on this article because my view is not neutral, that is just a personal decision. RoseMontague (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to add anything in without a source, even if it is unsourced now. If you present text here exactly as you want it in the article (including sources), I will copy and paste into the article, making any changes I feel are necessary to comply with WP policy.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Frank Sfarzo is a source for this. I would argue that he is a reliable source so long as he is reporting what happened and why. He was the only journalist who was in court every day and on a number of occasions he has provided accurate information that was available nowhere else.PietroLegno (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the two sources, the first covers the original 30 years, the second has it reduced to 24 and mentions the 16 after the one-third fast track reduction. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/28/meredith-kercher-guede-knox-sollecito http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder RoseMontague (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Revesed blanking of whole sections of article

(this section is linked as "Revesed" rather than "Reversed") I have initiated a WP:BRD cycle by bolding re-adding all changes that I made yesterday, including restoring 2 entire sections totally blanked by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (in this edit). In general, users should note the following:

• WP:Blanking sections violates many policies

A user who blanks entire sections of an article and then demands consensus to have them re-added is typical of the massive gutting of this article which occurred during the past months. There is no policy which requires anyone to get consensus before adding sections to an article, and deleting the sections to demand consensus before updating an article can be viewed as a violating many policies. At this point, with the formal initiation of a WP:BRD cycle, then consensus is needed to again delete those whole sections of the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Tarc ignored the WP:BRD cycle, within 6 minutes, and blanked those sections and removed over 48 other changes (made by 2 users) in this edit. -Wikid77 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You yourself didn't have consensus to re-add that bloat in the first place, so, sorry, but no. There is obviously a huge debate here on the merits of restoring forensics material and other from that older, larger version. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, what policy do you think requires a user to gain consensus before adding a new section to the article? -Wikid77 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, if an addition is reverted, it should be discussed (and obtain consensus) before readding. If TMCK doesn't think the added material fits, I think its on you to get consensus to add it.LedRush (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, the default does not have to be deletion of text. And the above reverts removed, not just those 2 new sections, but over 49 other changes to the article, including an edit by another user who changed the title of one section. Please read the essay above. All of my 50 changes were removed entirely. However, it is good to identify, now, all the editors who will not allow expansion of this article. Other editors need to beware the extreme extent to which this article has been gutted, and the extent to which deleting hundreds of words of text continues. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand. If they just removed new sections (meaning they weren't in there already), I stand by my above statements. If they removed those sections, plus a whole bunch of other stuff, the removal should be reverted and they should be more precise with their reversions.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there were over 50 changes made to the text, and rather than edit the article to delete just the 2 whole sections (without consensus to delete), they completely reverted all changes made by 2 editors; click the following link to see the diff-text of all 50 changes which were removed: "show all 50 changes removed". I agree that the editors need to undo their deletions and discuss which of those 50 changes they feel needs to be removed. -Wikid77 15:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should be hosting a timeline cited to a photocopy of a primary court document in Italian. What is this alleged timeline as asserted by who? http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20100318/knox_opinion.pdf - Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind reverting new sections, but reverting everything else in the process seems disruptive and obstructionist. Each of the new sections should be discussed (separately) here, and if there are problems with the minor edits (like taking out the first names from the heading), let's discuss them separately as well.LedRush (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

However, it is good to identify, now, all the editors who will not allow expansion of this article. Other editors need to beware the extreme extent to which this article has been gutted, and the extent to which deleting hundreds of words of text continues.

The end of the first sentence should read "excessive and inordinate expansion of this article". With respect, Wikid, part of your attempt to "expand" the article seems to go against the purpose of the lead section - the introduction of an article serves to give a general summary of the content, not to go into specifics such as the number of euros stolen. Detailed forensics and timelines have been debated in the past and removed as going into excessive detail. You have been told this repeatedly in the past. Since the dissertation cited is one that you yourself made in June 2010, I fail to see much of an argument for reintegration of much of the text past self-citation of opinion. I would suggest that you re-read WP:BRD to gain a better understanding of the concept. SuperMarioMan 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It see no reason to accept a blanket claim that there is prior consensus for every reduction from the 150 kb version - who can go through all those edits and tell what was agreed and what just happened and was gotten away with? And when so many dubious blocks have been made, how much is consensus worth? Best just to look at the text.

I think that the detailed timeline looks good to stay right now - it should actually be expanded. Lots of articles have timelines with far less justification than an article about a real life murder mystery.

The stuff about the searches and the apartment that is currently being contested look like they should be reworked with a better plan. It seems unorganized, with too few inline citations, and despite all its detail it still isn't enough detail to really understand the significance of it. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Jimbo had to step in to stop the stranglehold of POV pushing on this article, it's fair to assume any supposed prior consensus to remove content in the earlier article is no longer valid. Consensus is not permanent anyway, and, considering the very poor decisions made by the previous editors, saying they all agreed something doesn't belong is probably a stronger vote for putting it back. Not that I support all the old stuff either, but some of these arguments being made are clearly in bad faith. DreamGuy (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Request For Edit - Events surrounding the murder

I thought I would try to shorten the section "Events surrounding the murder" in response to Hipocrite's concerns about bloat. I was able to cut out about 100 words, but then I put in a few additional lines. I think all of the information is very relevant to understanding the crime and Knox's known behaviors preceding discovery of the body. Here is my proposed rewrite of the section material:

Kercher’s flat was empty in the early evening hours of November 1, 2007. One Italian flatmate would stay at her boyfriends, and the other was out of town. So also were the four young men who lived downstairs.[21]:41 Knox expected to work at Le Chic pub that night. At 8:18 pm her boss, Patrick Lumumba, sent her a message that business was slow and she wasn’t needed. Knox texted in reply "Okay see you later good evening!" in Italian. Knox answered the door at Sollecito's flat when a friend stoped by at 8:45 pm.[21]:47-48

Kercher was at the home of friend. She arrived around 4pm.[A1] She shared a pizza with three young English women, all friends. [A1]The meal could have started as early as 5:30pm to as late as 6:30pm. [A1,B]The friends watched a movie and eat an apple crumble.[A2] Kercher said she was tired and wanted an early night. One of Meredith’s friends walked her almost home, parting company at about 8:55 pm.[21]:48-49 The last 500 yards (460 m) Kercher walked alone.[22]

Before 10:30pm a car broke down along the road in front of the flat. The driver called for a tow, and the car was removed at around 11:15pm. The driver and truck operator reported the flat was dark and still.[C]49 A woman who lived nearby later said she heard a "chilling scream" that night, followed by running footsteps.[23]

At 2:30am Rudy Guede was in the Domus Disco, dancing.[C]50

The next day, at 12:07 pm Knox called one of Kercher's two mobile phones. At 12:08 Knox called Filomena R, the Italian flatmate responsible for the lease. Knox had returned to the flat, she said, and found the front door open and blood in a bathroom. Knox then called Kercher's second mobile phone and also tried the first phone again. Ms R called Knox three times. The final call was at 12:34pm. Knox tells Ms R the window in her room has been broken and the room is a mess. At 12:47 pm, Knox called her mother in Seattle who tells her to call the police. Sollecito made two calls, at 12:51 and 12:54 pm, to the Italian emergency number 112 to summon the Carabinieri. He reported a break in, blood, a locked door and a missing roommate. During this call Knox can be heard giving the address for the flat.[21]:57-61 Before the arrival of the Carabinieri, two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police came. They were investigating the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones in a nearby garden.[25]

Knox showed the two officers the room with the broken window, the locked door and the blood in the bathroom. Ms R arrived with three friends. The Carabinieri had yet to arrive, and the Post and Communications Police werereluctant to break down Meredith’s locked door. Around 1:15 pm one of the friends kicked it open. Kercher was found lying on the floor covered by a duvet soaked in blood. The officers ordered everyone out.[21]:62-65

Added sources: A) The Massei Report:1 Amy Frost Itl p 23, PMF p 37; 2 Sophie Purton Itl p 24, PMF 37. B: Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, etc. C: Dempsey, Candace (2010). Murder in Italy. New York: Berkley Books. Moodstream (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• I like the wider coverage of events from the WP:RS sources, especially if the text was changed to past tense (such as "kicks" to "kicked") to match the verb tense of the other prose in the article. Also, the text above needs to state "Filomena R." rather than the full names of people who are not the case lawyers or police (per policy WP:BLP for naming other people). -Wikid77 (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I wasn't thinking about how it fit in, just how to cut out -ed's and 'was -ing's'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moodstream (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so just edit your suggested text, above, putting past-tense verbs and abbreviating names to "Filomena" or "Filomena R." or "Luca A." (etc.). -Wikid77 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to move most of the witness testimony to the trial section. The lady who heard the scream, the homeless guy, the people in the broken down car and the tow truck driver came forward or were found months later. There is also substantial disagreement on the reliability of some of these witnesses. The car park video of a woman approaching the cottage might be mentioned here. Also the phone events recorded by the victims phone after she left her friends. (An attempt to call her mother, an attempt to connect with her bank that didn't use the required dialing prefix and the receipt of an MMS message). --Footwarrior (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I put it in past tense. I did it sort of quick so it may - well it does anyway - need some work. I was thinking about adding Toto and Quintaville at the bottom, with statements like a few weeks later a homeless man claimed to have seen the pair, and a year later Quint claimed Knox was in his store. But both of these are so controversial, it is hard to squeeze them in without adding a paragraph each about the uncertainty of their testimony. I think you are right about the phone records for Meredith's phone. I wasn't aware there was any controversy about the broken down car, but if there is, that needs to be addressed too, I would think. Moodstream (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

.

Creating a detailed timeline with sources

There is concern that a condensed timeline of events be sourced to secondary-source descriptions to support notability of the details, as noted in WP page section (about needing secondary sources):

• WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

For that reason, footnotes linked to the Massei Motivations report should also be backed by footnotes to other reliable sources of those events (and there are, indeed, many news reports which include some of the events). Note that the exact time is not critical, but rather the significance of events is the issue, as whether those events were important enough to be noted in other sources: for example, if a source reports that someone called someone else, then that event can be sourced to that report, using the Massei timestamp.
If a particular time of an event is disputed, then that should be discussed on the talk-page, with a {{underdiscussion-inline|Topicname}} tag (showing: ^{[under discussion]}), to alert readers to the discussion at talk-page topic #Topicname. The suggested timeline is below, to be expanded for significant events, plus extra footnote sources to be added. We know many users have expressed an interest in the timeline, it just needs to meet the formatting policies about source footnotes. -Wikid77 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed detailed timeline

Below is the proposed timeline (explained above, under: #Creating a detailed timeline with sources). Please edit the timeline, in this section, to add more source footnotes on lines where only Massei, as "[1]" or "[3]" is footnoted (do not delete the Massei numbers, just add more footnotes).

---

• 20:18:12 Amanda Knox receives a text message (sms) from manager Lumumba telling her not to come to work that night
• 20:35:48 Amanda sends text message (sms) reply to Patrick Lumumba, turns off phone a bit later.
• 20:42:56 (221 seconds) Sollecito receives phone call from his father.
• 20:55 Kercher friend Sophie arrives home after leaving Kercher walking along street
• 21:00 Kercher returns to flat after seeing DVD film with friends (estimated time)
• 22:00 Kercher UK mobile phone dials her London bank but wrong prefix code prevents call
• 22:13 Kercher's UK mobile phone receives call (unanswered) through another mobile station
• 22:25 Rudy Guede states that he left Meredith dying around this time and went home along backstreets
• 22:30–23:00 Kercher dies about this time (according to pathologist at trial)
• 06:02:59 Sollecito mobile phone receives text message (sms) sent by his father at 23:41
• 11:38 Phone brought to Postal Police is traced to Filomena R.
• 11:50 Postal police record that Lana B. and daughter (called) say they do not know this Filomena
• 12:00? Postal police are called by Lana's daughter, who reports finding phone #2 (UK) in garden
• 12:07:12 (duration 16 seconds) Amanda calls English number of Kercher
• 12:08:44 (68 seconds) Amanda calls Filomena (about door open & blood spots)
• 12:11:02 (3 seconds) Amanda calls Italian phone of Kercher, call forwarded to voicemail.
• 12:11:54 (4 seconds) Amanda calls Kercher UK phone again
• 12:12:35 (36 seconds) Filomena R. calls Amanda
• 12:20:44 (65 seconds) Filomena R. calls Amanda again
• 12:34:56 (48 seconds) Filomena R. calls Amanda.
• 12:35 Two postal police arrive outside the flat (time claimed in Guede trial)^{[contested in court]}
• 12:40 (67 seconds) Sollecito receives call from his father.
• 12:46 Postal police station logs receipt of mobile phone #2 (Meredith's UK phone) delivered by neighbor's daughter
• 12:47:23 (88 seconds) Amanda calls her mother in Seattle.
• 12:50:34 (39 seconds) Sollecito calls his sister in the Carabinieri, a different branch of the Italian police
• 12:51:40 (169 seconds) Sollecito calls "112" to report theft
• 12:54 (57 seconds) Sollecito calls "112" again,
• c.13:00 Two postal police arrive outside flat, meet Knox/Sollecito who talk of broken glass and blood^{[time decided in court]}
• 13:00 Filomena R. and her friends arrive at the flat. Kercher's door is forced and victim's body discovered shortly afterwards.

Notes

---

The above timeline should be edited, by anyone, to add more source footnotes, if needed. Thanks. -Wikid77 19:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some things that I don't understand about this timeline. To begin with, how did Filomena's phone get mixed up in this, at 11:38? Or was she traced as a caller, and it's actually one of Amanda's phones? And who called who at 11:50 - the police to Lana or vice versa? Also (more generally) is there a plausible means by which Kercher, if she had called her bank with the right prefix, could have directed an immediate payment to someone holding her at knifepoint? Is a British bank open at 22:00 in Italy? Did she have lots of money in an account there? Wnt (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both Meredith and Amanda had their national home phones (such as Meredith to UK), but both were loaned Italian phones, with 1st housemate Filomena R. providing an Italian phone to Meredith, and 2nd housemate Laura M. providing an Italian phone to Amanda. When the postal police arrived they were asking about Filomena's loaned phone, and Knox/Sollecito could have replied that she was not there and try somewhere else. Knox testified that she called Meredith's UK phone as the first call (ringing 16 sec.), because she said Meredith "always" carried that phone expecting calls about her ill mother in England, so Knox called Meredith's Italian phone later. Knox/Sollecito turned off their own phones c.8:45 the previous evening (per Knox testimony), but whoever took Meredith's phones left the phones running, and the various cell towers on the hillsides logged the activity of moving phones. Lana called the police, after the "bomb scare" thinking phone #1 could be the detonator. Meredith's bank phone# was the first number in her auto-dial list, activated just by re-pushing buttons. We could add this explanation near the timeline, because note how little text is needed to clarify all these points. Thanks for noting the confusion of phone ownership. -Wikid77 23:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there are serious errors with the timeline: 1) Meredith arrived home at about 9:00 PM--not 9:15. CF Candace Dempsey page 49. We pretty much reached consensus on this point before. It was in no way a 20 minute walk from where Sophie and Meredith parted. 2)It was conclusively proved in court using CCTV that the postal police arrived at about 1:00 PM just after Raffaele made his call. This was supported by a police log showing that the police were not even dispatced until 12:45. We had this right at one point. On at least two occasions the Massei report says that the postal police arrived at 1:00--which is accurate. 3) The timeline accepts the prosecution's theory of time of death but this is very much in dispute. In fact it is a major point of contention and cannot at this point be treated as established fact. The appeals documents use coroners reports, indications of when Meredith last ate, unusual cell phone activity, the clothes in the dryer, how Meredith was dressed when attacked, and the testimony of those who were fixing a stalled car to undermine powerfully the prosecution claims on this point. Further, in his summation Mignini moved the time of death back to 11:30 without any foundation in evidence to accommodate the fact that Curatolo's testimony (if believed) gave them an alibi. As a final point, I am concerned about using the Micheli report any more. Surely he is superseded by Massei and if you are going to balance discussion on these critical issues the appeals simply must be included.PietroLegno (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If sources disagree, please list them both and note the disagreement. Wnt (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Revised timeline from Massei updates: Yes, I had also read the definitive decision that postal police arrived c.13:00, so I have revised the timeline. The Micheli Judgment is needed for events about Guede (from his separate trial), but I think, when disputed, we could, indeed, put multiple times for some events. I have heard that Mignini replaced the first pathologist, with a 2nd doctor, who gave a different TOD, so we could have 2 (or 3) in the timeline, per each source. Also, I agree that the event timestamps from the appeal should also be included, and I don't think there would be too many conflicts of times. -Wikid77 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The work of the pathologists is an important subpoint. For reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained, the pathologist who first arrived on the scene was prevented from taking the victim's body temperature. Thus, the best opportunity to establish the all-important time of death was lost irretrievably. The consensus of the pathologists was that MK died between 2 and 3 hours after she last ate. That makes it 9:00 at the earliest and 10:00 PM at the latest. All the rest of the evidence suggests that the earlier time is more accurate. PietroLegno (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that what the Massei report actually says is that the police said ("claimed" if you prefer) that they arrived at the scene "a little after 12:30" (page 14), isn't it a bit rabidly pro-Knox to render this as "c.13:00", so that it appears as if it is after Sollecito called the police? According to Sollecito himself, he didn't call the police before they arrived: "She told me to call 121 but in the meantime the postal police arrived" [22]. So why the approximateness about it?

Obviously, I don't expect this comment to be taken seriously, but it's worth leaving here in case the article passes back into the hands of Wikipedia editors some time soon. --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be awesome if you could make a comment without making a personal attack as part of it. Also, as you well know from your past conversations on this board [23], there is a disagreement as to whether the call was made before or after the police arrived. Pretending you didn't know that is, at best, an extreme example of selective memory and, at worst, an extreme example of editing in bad faith.LedRush (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to drop the detailed timeline idea. When the times of specific events are known, include them in the text. Except for the phone calls, the exact times of many of the events in this case are not really known. --Footwarrior (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for Footwarrior's suggestion. It will be impossible to construct a universally acknowledged timeline, I think. Further, many of the issues we would get into our sideline distractions. The main points of discussion ought to be motivation for the crime (or lack therof), the defendants own statements, the witness statements, and the many types of physical evidence.PietroLegno (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I also cannot leave FormerIP's inaccurate assertions and sour comments above unchallenged. It is like he is stuck in a time warp. The link he provides is to a story that appeared in November 2007. It has since been shown by hard evidence to be inaccurate on this point. At trial, the defense established that the clock on the CCTV camera was at least 10 minutes slow. When this correction is made, it is apparent that the postal police arrived just after Raffaele made his call. This was all reported by a reliable Italian source at the time and we had things right in an earlier version of the article. Massei acknowledges this on pages 25 and 27 of the translated report. He is clearly making the point that while the postal police may have claimed to have been there at 12:30 but they were clearly wrong. Further, as I mentioned before, the police log showed that the officers were not dispatched until about 12:45--perfectly consistent with the later arrival. At trial the police came up with the rather lame excuse that the official log was in error. PietroLegno (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this account? The pages you refer to in the Massei report don't seem to make any reference to CCTV if "At trial, the defense established.." were true you would expect the sentencing report to at least mention it, whereas it seems instead to directly contradict the supposed conclusion. Or does "At trial, the defense established" really just mean "On the Internet, it was wildly speculated that...".

The Italian source you refer to obviously isn't RS and doesn't say what you are claiming in any case. But it's in Italian, so who's to know? I think, in the current climate, you will definitely get away with it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how FormerIP needs to insult other editors with virtually every comment he makes on this site. Editors should address the merits of the points.LedRush (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. FormerIP's sourness wears thin. Of course the Italian source is reliable under any reasonable construction of the rules. But then he considers any source that does not agree with his pov unreliable. Frank Sfarzo--who is reliable on these matters if not all others--went over this in detail. It is in the appeals. Massei clearly accepts the defense point of view. I am tempted to say that this horse died a long time ago, except there was never really a horse at all. This is just one of those idiotic smokescreens the pro-guilt faction dreamed up. In reality, it is not in any sense probative. PietroLegno (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Sfarzo is a blogger is he not? Are you able to quote the extract from the Massei report where this CCTV theory is even discussed?

As for my sourness, don't worry. I have many layers yet to wear through. --FormerIP (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember this being heavily debated before, but I don't remember a conclusive outcome. Pietro, can you provide the sources which indicate that that Massei accepted the defense point of view? If we get that, I think it changes the tenor of the discussion of whether the other source is reliable or not.LedRush (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so other people understand, the CCTV in the garage across the street picked up the arrival of both the postal police and Carabinieri. The prosecutor and police tried to claim the clock was actually fast and that the postal police arrived before Raffaele's call. However, an analysis of records established the earliest point at which the Carabinieri could have arrived. Using that sure point as reference, it was possible to demonstrate that the clock was 10-12 minutes slow--not fast. When that correction was applied it was conclusively proved that the postal police arrived after Raffaele's call, just as he had maintained all along. This was picked up and reported by reliable sources. No, Massei does not go into this issue in great detail. But he does correctly state the time that the postal police arrived (page 25 and 27 in the translation) and that was after the call. He clearly implies that the claims of the postal police were in error. After this, seeing nothing of value for the prosecution, he drops the subject. The theory that Raffaele called after the arrival of the postals was too absurd for even this hostile judge to credit. PietroLegno (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a case of "sourness" to point out the problematic editing going on here. From the short time I have looked at these pages over the last few days, "rabidly pro-Knox" is pretty spot-on. Concocting an WP:OR timeline of events only compounds the issue, as this article moves away from an encyclopedia treatment and into realms of she-might-be-innocent advocacy. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with admitting to being sour about it, though.

Pietro. What you are giving seems to me to be the account of a blogger. It might be wrong or it might be right, but it isn't authoritative in itself. The Massei report can't really be said to "correctly" state the time of the arrival of the police, because it isn't even very precise about that time. It's "just after 12:30" (p 12) or "shortly before 1:00 pm" (p 14) or "shortly after 12:30" (p 84) (just incidentally, the reference I think you are alluding to above is to the arrival of another flatmate at 1 pm (p 12), by which time we know that the police were already there). This would seem a weak basis for saying that the time the police arrived was 1 pm. It doesn't even appear that the jury considered the time to be very important, or the report would be more specific. Secondary sources say the police testified that they arrived at 12:35 [24]. This is also the time indicated in the Micheli report [25] (text search "l'orario di arrivo dell’equipaggio alle 12:35"). --FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that if there is a quote from Sollecito's himself, as refereed to by User:FormerIP regarding when he called the police this should be referenced and considered in the string of evidence on an encyclopaedia. Just because RS then decided to stay silent while lawyers worked around technicalities - it does not diminish the significance of the statement - it lends to highlighting and understanding the very controversy of this case. As for Pietro's explanation of the CCTV camera time - it is wrong. The CCTV was claimed to have been slow by the defence and it was not the prosecution who claimed it was fast. This is significant, because at first site and per Micheli the police had evidence in form of CCTV time stamp showing the police arrived before RS's cell phone called 112. It was then claimed by the defence that the camera clock was slow and that is where we seem to be in the Massei Report. --GiselleK (talk) 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking the Massei Report in context, it's rather clear that the judge didn't accept that the Postal Police arrived before the call to 112. Quoting from page 15:

"These then are the preceding facts and the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1:00 pm on November 2, 2009 of the Postal Police team consisting of Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi.

As stated by Battistelli (page 80, hearing of February 6, 2009) they had some difficulty finding the house, as they had gone along Viale S. Antonio, which is alongside and in part hides the house. Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen."

The claim that the officers arrived around 12:30 is not supported by any documents. Nor does it fit with the other events of that day. Filomena and friends showed up close to 1 pm, while Amanda was still showing the two officers the broken window and blood in the flat. When did AK and RS have time to sneak away and make the 112 call where the officers couldn't hear it? Even ignoring the car park video evidence, the claim that the officers arrived at 12:30 PM doesn't work. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pietro is basically correct on this. The defense presentation in court is the postale pdf found here:  :http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/postale.pdf

The cameras show the arrival of the police at 12:48, the prosecution had the 10-12 minutes reversed, the clock was slow and not fast. This was proven in the same presentation through Amanda's phone records as the Cabinieri called for directions and they would have had to arrive (arrival also shown in the pdf) before they called her if the clock was fast and not slow. The actual arrival time would have been 12:58-1:00PM of the postale police, and not the 12:35 (12:38 if clock was fast going buy the photos) claimed by the prosecution.RoseMontague (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here is p 89 of the translated Massei report, where the report finds unequivocally, if meekly, that the Carabinieri are called before the postal police arrive.

‘And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants' defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito's telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary. Fabio Marsi in fact testified that they two young people told him "they were awaiting the arrival of the Carabinieri because there had been a burglary inside the house" ‘

Yes, it’s begrudged, but it’s there: “the Postal Police (who ***it can be held*** …[derived from arguments of the defense], arrived after Raffaele Sollecito's telephone call to 112 … by … the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing [and] .. they said nothing about those that preceded them … each call being of a not brief duration … [and] therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers. “

There is no controversy. The call to the Carabinieri came first, the postal police arrived after Sollecito’s second call to the Carabinieri, no earlier than 12:55.Moodstream (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate use of primary sources. If secondary sources have discussed in what order the police arrived (Who cares? Why does this matter at all?) then please provide them. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don’t follow. In a prior version of the talk page, in the ‘Events Surrounding the Murder Section’, you argue “Secondary sources are sources that are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.” The translation of the Massei report is such a second hand account. The translators analyzed the primary source, the Italian version, and reported it. The focus should be the reliability of the translation. Your sources simply report, far less reliably, from the same material reviewed by the translators.Moodstream (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The report of a prosecutor, or the ruling of a judge is a primary source. A translation without commentary of a primary source is still a primary source. If you doubt my accuracy, please seek clarification at WP:RSN. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I think it's enormously important, I do think that we should be citing the Italian original rather than the translation, because the translation is self-published. The translation is obviously useful to editors for the purposes of discussion, though. --FormerIP (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Moodstream and Footwarrior: Whether it fits the defence version of events or not isn't the point. The point is that if you want to create a timeline of events you need to use the times in the sources, not make times up based on what you suppose must have been the case. Massei mentions the time on three occasions. Twice he says shortly after 12:30, once he says shortly before 1 pm. From this we can only conclude that it must be somewhere between the two. Other primary and secondary sources say 12:35. No sources have been presented for any other time.

If the times in the sources don't support your side of the story, don't make a timeline. --FormerIP (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I am not sure that the entire detailed timeline is completely necessary. However, I do believe that certain aspects can be: certain calls, and certainly whether the police came before or after Sollecito's call to them. However, FormerIP is right, we need reliable, secondary sources. Even with those, though, we need to recognize that at least some (and perhaps all) secondary sources go with the earlier timeline. We can't change/delete it because we don't like it.LedRush (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond in depth. However, a quick review of the '12:30' times I found show that Massei is reporting from the Postal Police's memory. The report is not ruling or judging, just reporting the Postal Polices frame of mind. Even p. 94 of the translation. There, earlier testimony is being referred to and reported, it seems to me. Am I wrong?Moodstream (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fine. I have put both arrivals as 2 entries, 12:35 & c.13:00, with note "^{[time decided in court]}" which can be changed to link a short section about the disputed time, since extensive text is unlikely to reverse the Massei time decision. However, this seems like the type of controversial topic to be mentioned (briefly) in the article, which is expected to have NPOV coverage, including major controversies. By formerly omitting 10 controversies, it seemed as though the article had been slanted to omit topics which favored one view or another, and left issues appearing to be undecided when, in fact, they had been settled in court. -Wikid77 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no source for "c. 13:00". That's all there is to it. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While it appears that the Massei report concluded that the police came after the second call, it is OR to say they came "c. 13:00". We need a source for such a statement.LedRush (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Massei Report page 15. Didn't you read the quote I posted earlier? --Footwarrior (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you looking at only one quote (BTW I don't think you actually mean p 15)? Massei refers to the time on three occasions. Twice he says shortly after 12:30, once he says shortly before 1 pm. So all we can say is it must have been somewhere between the two. Interpreting it as "c. 13:00" is obviously not okay unless we intend the page to be a distorted representation of the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Footwarrior that it appears the Massei report has agreed that the police came after the second call. And because we know when the second call was, it logically stands to reason that that is the earliest they could have arrived. But we cannot synthesize these facts to make the claim as if the Massei report says about 1:00, when it is clear that the Massei report cites different times. If there isn't a secondary source on this, we shouldn't include it. Either that, or we deal with the controversy in the text and cite 12:30-13:00 in the timeline.LedRush (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to apologize for this post. Every word is already known by every likely reader. I hate to waste your time. But I have more concern that this article might end up promoting the fallacy that Massei reports two different times for the arrival of the postal police or ‘twice he says shortly after 12:30, once he says shortly before 1 pm’. There is no controversy in Massei over the arrival time of the postal police.

Where does Massei cite two different times? Where does Massei say the call came after the arrival of the postal police? Not on page 27 (all pages pmf translation): “Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen. Not on p 92-93 : Inspector Battistelli recalls…"they told us they were waiting for the police" (Hearing on February 6, 2009, page 64, pages 86, 87). … Battistelli has also stated in the same hearing that it was Romanelli who noticed that Meredith's door was locked (page 118). On this point, it is possible that Battistelli's memory is not precise. It does indicate how no importance was given to the locked door by Amanda and Raffaele when Battistelli arrived with Marzi shortly after 12:30 pm,” It = the report of the hearing, where Battistelli recalls – recalls that he arrived shortly after 12:30. Page 92-93 is simply a retelling of p 27.

Thus Massei does not support a 12:30 arrival time for the postal police. Massei only relays the Postal Police’s unsupported perception of their own arrival time.

“the Postal Police (who it can be held …, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito's telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them.” Here is the list of calls about which they said nothing over that short 30 minute period: 12:34:56 - 12:35:44 Filomena calls Amanda 12:35: Raffaele contacted a service centre for a phone credit recharge 12:38: Vodafone sent a message of confirmation of phone credit recharge 12:40 – 12:41:07: incoming call from the father's mobile phone 12:47:23 – 12:48:51 Amanda calls her mother 12:50:34- 12:51:15 Raffaele calls Vanessa Sollecito, sister 12:51:40 12:54:29Raffaele Sollecito calls "112" 12:54:30? – 12:55:27? second call by Raffaele

The longest break between calls? Six minutes. Total talk time, eight minutes. The conclusion is incontrovertible, and Massei endorses the conclusion again at p P387-388 by writing: “and Raffaele called the Carabinieri to whom he describes the situation and specifies that there had been no theft, and we have already pointed out the … inconsistencies in Amanda's and Raffaele's ***subsequent*** behaviour on the arrival of the agents from the Postal Police."

There is no controversy regarding the relative arrival time of the postal police. The only controversy is if the postal police were mistaken or if they lied.Moodstream (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Such a section would violate WP:SUMMARY and also WP:NOR. --John (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of Mobile Phones activity?

I remember that Knox and Sollecito mobile phones had both a peculiar activity the night of the murder. Why is this factual piece of information unmentioned throughout the article? --Grifomaniacs (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see above timeline discussion.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to reports that indicate that Knox and Sollecito both switched off their phones at about 9 pm that night.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That could go in the above timeline, right?LedRush (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. In addition to that I think that Mobile Phones Activity should be regarded apart, in a less broader manner, it is a central issue not second to DNA for importance.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - it makes sense to keep the timeline comprehensive and separate, with all calls listed equally; but the article should also explain the prosecutors' arguments about the cell phones (and rebuttals) from the "top down", focusing on the most important calls (as judged by the secondary sources). Wnt (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the mobile phone issues are in dispute. There is no objective evidence of when phones were turned off or on--just a lot of speculation. All we know for certain is when they were used because even that gets tricky when you get into the details. As I will say many times in this discussion, a lot of this is a sideline and a distraction. The main issues are: Motive, defendants statements, witnesses, and physical evidence. Much of the cell phone discussion is just speculative entertainment. PietroLegno (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful documentary for inclusion in resource/documentary list: Learning Channel documentary "The Trials of Amanda Knox" (not to be confused with Lifetime movie with similar name). NigelPScott (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nowadays, mobile phones are our digital protheses... I think they should be counted as a sort of physical evidence, if you carry them... We have to rely on the analyses by third party technicians involved in the trial... On second instance, on those effectuated by indipendent renowed experts in that field. At that point, removed the buzz and speculations, you may obtain sources for an encyclopedia. I will check the web and the mentioned sources to further verify mobile phones turnoff/on question. Thank you for your answers.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions of the people posting here that the mobile phones are important or peculiar or whatever are not significant. If the issue was important to a trial it would have been mentioned in the reliable sources and can be mentioned in the article in relative proportion, assuming both sides' views are adequately covered. I'm at a bit of a loss at first blush to understand how turning off phones (assuming it can be proved to have happened) is at all peculiar, let alone incriminating, but, again, as an editor here my personal opinion does not matter -- so bring on the reliable sources and the suggested wording to present it in a NPOV way. DreamGuy (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The mobile phones discussion was important as part as the circumstantial evidence in this case. For instance; it shows that the accused were awake when they claim to have been asleep. It was part of the Massei Report and therefore it should be entered into the Wikipedia page whether or not editors agree with its relevance or significance. It is documented evidence - it should be up to readers to infer will they want from this evidence.--GiselleK (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While that sounds reasonable on the face of it, it's not really practical and ends up in most cases violating Wikipedia policies. If you say that anything in the Massei Report is notable and should be in the article, then the article would have to include the entire report. We need to see what outside reliable sources have to say about it and include it or not in proportion to the other coverage. To do otherwise would be cherry picking certain topics based upon the editors' own personal opinions, which is original research/synthesis and tends to be done so that undue weight can be given and slant the article. Certainly, based upon the wording, some of the comments here are trying to justify its inclusion solely based upon whether it supports the opinions they have already formed about the case. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Who do you mean by outside sources?! The whole problem with this case is the controversy, the issue is that the facts, such as cell records - which cannot be disputed - are not freely available. People come to an encyclopaedia for facts and not the media reports. Especially since if we look at what most the media have to say, it will be pro-knox given the massive PR campaign her family launched. How can that be balanced? For the most part everything in the Massei Report - the most reliable source of information - should be included, but in short.--Giselle 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

Less than candid court testimonies

I think it might be helpful to note, as a general issue, that some testimonies by witnesses were considered less than candid, to indicate how many witnesses were believed to have problems in their testimonies, such as in the Guede trial, when friends of Guede would be unable to recall events when they might be considered as aiding a fugitive on the run. Also, witnesses were asked if they had given interviews to the media. I tend to think of this issue as "everyone changed their stories" (well, not actually everyone) during the trials, and at least in the case of Judge Paolo Micheli, he noted that allowances were made for selective memory in cases of potential self-incrimination. The article should not give the impression that all witnesses were completely reliable in their views of events (many were not), where only the suspects were considered to have changed the reported events. I realize that this issue is a higher level of concern, about "selective memory", but I feel it would add depth to the article, and provide a better understanding of all the shifty things the juries heard during various conflicting, or altered, testimonies. For example, someone might have trouble remembering a phone call in which they said, "All these people in this town are such bumbling fascists" (or such). Also, in terms of Patrick L., remember that some witnesses contradicted his view of when he claimed to be in his pub, so his slow release after being arrested can also be connected to his story not matching other witnesses. I'm not sure where the article should discuss this problem, but perhaps a bottom section could be added. -Wikid77 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely. In my opinion, Filomena R.(...) is a very unreliable witness. It is very wrong and very unfair for anyone to put much stock into what she said. She is often contradicted both by the testimony of others and by things like photographic evidence. Also, there were clearly language barriers between her and Amanda. One of the reasons the Dempsey book is valuable is that it provides a good deal of the fine detail that is not available elsewhere. PietroLegno (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on guys, unless you list secondary sources for conclusions like this you're basically just having a forum conversation. Now in the article there is a section "Evidence" which has a section "Forensic Evidence" but not a section "Witness testimony". There should be such a section, and under it there should be a section about "Witness credibility", under which such sources are listed, together with an excerpt of their key conclusions. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I was just noting from the Micheli Judgment in comments by Dr. Paolo Micheli, but some examples could include a witness saying the streets were wet from rain when the rain occurred on the previous night. However, it does make sense to only list contradictions, or omissions, as noted in secondary sources. -Wikid77

Don't forget that any reported contradictions in evidence must not be original research or synthesis (WP:OR) and instead must be cited to reliable sources and have the side making the claims identified so nobody is confused: So-and-so testified for the prosecution and made whatever statement.<reliable source> Defense lawyers/expert argued that it was unreliable because whatever-reason-they-gave.<another reliable source>. There may also be some notability issues if it goes too in depth, but certainly some coverage of this important aspect is necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The upstairs flat diagram

Where did that come from? Is it original research, or a reproduction of something published in a secondary source? Sorry if I missed earlier discussion on this issue: the board is crazy busy now.LedRush (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Click on the image and you will see it's the original work of the editor that uploaded the graphic. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So, is OR allowed for diagrams?LedRush (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A diagram is not considered original research. See WP:OI.--Footwarrior (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. So, it is clear that this image does "not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments"? Everyone's ok with it? I am not educated enough on the house layout to have an opinion.LedRush (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• (after endless ec) :::The image is still there after it was deleted several times (also under a different filename) because the uploader was so insistent and seemly nobody cared anymore :) Cheers.TMCk (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? Was it because it illustrates or introduces unpublished ideas or argument? Or because it's not needed? Something else?LedRush (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is Wikid77, the author of that concept diagram, and it had been deleted (twice?) as being too close in dimensions to a published map of the house, which would be considered a copy vio unless all dimensions of the house could be proven to match a published source of the house measurements (as in the Micheli Judgment). Instead, using sources which described the relative locations of the rooms and objects, I recreated the image as a rough concept diagram, with rectangular walls although the actual house had uneven skewed walls, with the bedrooms nearly square. That way, there was no need to prove the length of each wall segment as required in a map scaled to the numbers in a formal source document. Although that diagram is backed by the room descriptions from Micheli, free photos could be submitted with little restrictions. The policy might seem shocking, but the issue of "no original research" does not apply to photos, and someone could upload a photo claiming it showed part of the house, and there would be no need to cite a published photo to prove the similarity with a documented source photo. That is another area of Wikipedia which could be improved, to require some amount of similarity to published photos in some cases. The limit on diagrams restricts the image to not "introduce unpublished ideas" such as a re-enactment of an event which does not match any reliable source. -Wikid77 03:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If the copyright fanatics are going to be that obnoxious, someone could copy the computer software industry's "clean room" approach. One Wikipedian writes down a verbal description of the map, giving the dimensions of all the rooms, in a format that is clearly non-copyrightable in a country not suffering from database copyright. Another then creates a map based on that information, without having viewed the original document. The measurements are sourced to the original diagram, so it is not original research, but no copyright violation can be asserted. Note that I would have no issue about accepting the good faith of an editor who says that he performed both steps, provided the output does not clearly contradict that. Wnt (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The upstairs flat at Via della Pergola 7 (in Perugia, Italy). The blue square (at right ) is a corner shower, in the small bathroom with no window, where a few blood smears were found.

• I also think a floorplan could be drawn from measurements, but that would be so tedious and most likely, some users would begin arguing that it introduced "original research" of the proportional wall thickness or other issues of map scaling. Hence, a concept diagram is simpler, requiring less rigorous defense of the length and width of each area. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, so there is no restriction to indicate a doorway where one is shown in a photograph. The concept is similar to noting a person in a photograph is "2nd person from the left" and that is not considered original research. Most simple conclusions are allowed when writing articles, as allowable synthesis, as opposed to "novel conclusions" not found in WP:RS reliable sources. -Wikid77 08:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fanatic. I merely wanted to know the history of the image and the associated rules. It seems particularly important in an contentious article such as this.LedRush (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It had been added to an old version of the article, then deleted as considered a map. Another user requested the diagram be re-added several weeks later, and that is when I added the current style of image (seen here at left). It was also noted as important when it was re-added, to support more detail about the topic. For instance, it is obvious in the diagram that there were 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms (and only 2, whereas 1 bathroom on a floor is often assumed). More later. -Wikid77 08:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I took it out. It adds nothing and is OR. --John (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I put it back in to correct the violation of consensus, while the image was being discussed. Hello? Please read WP:CONSENSUS about how people on Wikipedia discuss potential major deletions, such as removing an image to get agreement, especially, consider discussing the notion with the person who created the diagram. Also, read WP:NOR and WP:RS for background information. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• As an administrator of several years standing I assure you I am very familiar with the pages you linked to. It is clearly a case of original research, and the onus is on you if you wish to include it, to demonstrate a consensus that it is worth keeping. If you cannot do that, it will have to be removed again. --John (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I object in the strongest possible terms to John's continued attempts to introduce non-neutral elements here and into the lead--and heavens knows where else. He is undermining our efforts to build consensus and make a very flawed article much better. PietroLegno (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this non-free diagram is a POV. However, if you insist it be removed, I guess that's ok. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably easiest to take it to the OR noticeboard and get some additional eyes who aren't involved in this article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea Ravensfire, I probably will do. --John (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If User:John is indeed "an administrator of several years" who is "very familiar with the pages" he should also be aware of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:INVOLVED and WP:EDITWAR. Some of his statements here and elsewhere seem overly aggressive and appear to be trying to use his admin status as a hammer to get his own way. I hope that is not the case, and he could reassure us it is not by toning his rhetoric down several notches. He should also be reminded that User:JimboWales himself was here and made statements that seem to contradict what John is now trying to say. Are we to believe that Jimbo does not understand WP:NOR? Or is it that people in good faith can come to conflicting conclusions?

Seriously, John, take a step back, try to have a good faith discussion with people instead of just insisting you are right, and do not dive in with controversial edits against consensus. As an administrator with all your years of experience there is no excuse for behavior that violates Wikipedia's standards of conduct. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Previous version of this image were deleted because they were copyviolations of an image from this website: [26]. Although the version here has been narrowed by 16%, had its colour scheme changed and had some toilets added, it still looks derived from the same image to me. If it is, then it is still a copyvio. Wikid, you say "using sources which described the relative locations of the rooms and objects, I recreated the image as a rough concept diagram". Which sources did you use? How is it that the descriptions in these sources were such that the result of your work map exactly onto the floor plan produced by the BBC? --FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in lede?

I have tagged this statement as requiring a reference.

• There is a great deal of controversy over the conduct of the police investigation and prosecution, the convictions, and the media coverage of the events.

Can we justify this in the lede? --John (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a key part of what makes the case notable. As far a citation goes, it states what the article shows and almost every news item begins with "In the controversial case of US college student, Amanda Knox..." so it might be common knowledge. However a few sources would further substantiate that and could be helpful. The controversies are a main reason for the article's existence, if not the reason, so it establishes the distinction of the case--why it is an article in Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is no POV given, rather it states that POV's exist on the case and surrounding issues. One could argue that to leave it out of the lead section would be NPOV, since it is what makes the case notable. Another way to put it is why wouldn't it be in the lead section? Is it the wording or the fact, that you are pointing out? Perk10 (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10

I agree with Perk, it seems more POV NOT to have it.LedRush (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything here has to be WP:Verifiable. I trimmed the sentence to what is justifiable per the source we have. --John (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted John's change as being an unwarranted effort to introduce a non-neutral element and undermine efforts to make things fairer. The source does justify the lead used. It would be possible to find a reliable source that puts things even more strongly. To be neutral, the lead has to stress that the case is controversial on every level and that the verdict, the quality of the police work, and the conduct of the media are in question. The language that was there was a good compromise. PietroLegno (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, if the lede took a stance like you are suggesting, it would breach WP:NPOV, one of our most important policies, and also depart from what was justified by the single source, hence my edit. --John (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@PietroLegno: Then you should provide those sources so they can be looked over and applied as fit.TMCk (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I will do so. The change, which is aimed at making the lead as bland and vague is possible, is not the product of a neutral point of view. People have to understand that the verdict, the quality of police work, and the media coverage have all been questioned. I hope you will not make any more silly and unwarranted changes without leaving adequate time for discussion.People are just waking up here in the States and they are finding the compromises of the last few days evaporating. This is an article where we need expansion not constantly paring down. The drive to pare down is itself a product of a non-neutral point of view in this instance.PietroLegno (talk)

The lead MUST accurately summarize the information later in the article, and all this information is covered later and sourced. It gives a slanted view to remove it, and it clearly has consensus to stay. I therefore returned it. Do not remove it again without a clear consensus to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I allege that there is no consensus that it stay, but regardless, I contend that there is nothing in the body of the article that addresses a controversy over the "conduct of the police investigation," "conduct of the prosecution", or "the media coverage." Please detail, with quotes and sources, where in the article such controversy is adressed. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Dreamguys decision to revert John's unwarranted changes 100 percent. The article should address all these issues and the lead should prepare for that. It distresses me that John seems to be recapitulating the attitudes and behavior that created such a biased article in the first place. I urge neutral parties to check the various changes he is trying to introduce in various sections of the article. I also object to his being so fast on the draw and making changes very soon after proposing them and without a hint of consensus to do so.PietroLegno (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a summary of the article (slanted in one direction if you'd ask me but that's another issue) and can stand without sourcing until it is challenged, then a citation or more need to be attached.TMCk (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the source works as is and I think Dreamguy is working his way toward an acceptable and neutral compromise. It's a work in progress. Let's let it unfold without a lot of desperate rearguard action. PietroLegno (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone put in a comment in the article that there is nothing in the article supporting the idea that media coverage was controversial and therefore it should not be in the lead. That seems especially odd as an argument when that's all clearly in Murder of Meredith Kercher#Media coverage. Please, people, take a step back and look at the actual article before jumping in to remove clearly sourced content with claims that it is unsourced. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Using quotes from the article, please explain where, exactly, it says that the "media coverage was controversial." I could see saying "the media coverage conveyed many viewpoints," or "Various US commentators criticized the Italian process," or "Both sides expressed their views in the media," or even "Knox's lawyers allege that the media coverage tainted the jury." However, that the media coverage was controversial is not currently supported by the text. Thanks for reading the section and pointing me to the current language! Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence is undeniably about the controversy. You even quoted it above and missed it. Odd, that. The rest is perhaps not as explicitly worded as it could be for readers who need things spelled out in the simplest language possible. That section could also use some expansion, certainly. It also seems to give much WP:UNDUE weight to the claims that people said everything was fair when we know the defense lawyers have said any direct criticism of the process would likely cause a backlash. And whether the families say it is fair in itself isn't particularly noteworthy other than being an attempt to paint an overly rosy picture of the trial and its outcome. That is some pretty hardcore systemic bias there. DreamGuy (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hipocrite is right here, we cannot make the leap from our own ideas about the coverage to justify a tabloidese statement like this unless a reliable source actually says this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. A close read of WP:LEADCITE might be beneficial to some participants here. --John (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps we disagree on what the word "Controversy" means. I believe things are a "controversy" when there are reports that they are "controversial," not when someone says "I think the media coverage made me look like a hideous monster." I previously suggested that using the quotes of paid advocates at all was problematic - they make statements designed to win cases, not designed to be accurate, or what they accurately believe. A user who is directly involved with pro-Knox advocacy decided that this meant I was horribly biased against Knox.

However, this is neither here nor there - you agree with me that the section you said included obvious statements about controversy doesn't make any controversy clear. Why did you misrepresent the section when you told me to read it, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there's certainly enough to say that the conviction is considered controversial by some, especially in the United States. Might be enough to say that the conviction is considered controversial - probably need to make sure that is supported. I don't see anything to support "great deal" of controversy. I would go with "The conviction is viewed as controversial by some, with questions being raised about the conduct of the police in their investigation and of the prosecution." It better explains why there is controversy and is more balanced by adding "by some" as there is a fair amount of support for the conviction. Ravensfire (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be a less tabloidese version, certainly. I'd still like to see sources that specifically call the case "controversial". We certainly can't say "a great deal" as that is not the type of language we use here. --John (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to find sources which explicitly use the word "controversy" to say that there is one. However, there are ample sources that do. This one kills two birds with one stone, indicated that the verdict and comments in the press were controversial. [27]LedRush (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is reminiscent of the bad old days that led to the article being such a disaster in the first place. This time the tag-teamers call themselves John and Hipocrite. That the Knox-Sollecito trial is controversial is breathtakingly obvious. Just as obvious is the fact that writing a brief summary in the lead without a lot of footnoting makes sense. The neutral editors are trying to rough out a version of the article that is fair. Let them do their work for heavens sake without all this logic chopping and carping. Back before John banned him, a user--called PhanuelB supplied quote after quote that supported the idea that the case was controversial. Do you want me to repost some of that stuff? I think this rush to revert while there is a good faith effort to change things is unseemly.PietroLegno (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Knox's confession under duress

As it stands, this is what the Wiki page reads: "Knox later claimed that these statements were made under duress and that she had been assaulted and threatened by the police." It seems to provide no detail on what was actually claimed by Knox and since this is the subject of the slander case it may perhaps be wise to give this a little more attention. Knox in court gestures to show how the officer slapped behind her head and explains that she was threatened with jail time if she did not tell the truth. I would like to see if everyone agrees that this is an important part of the trial and should be explained in more detail - rather than "assaulted and threatened"? Perhaps a transcript from the trial and her claims can be linked? --Giselle 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

Media Coverage - Clinton

Reading the media coverage section I see that Hilary Clinton's comments on the case are missing. Since she is the Secretary of State - should her opinion not have some weight - at the very least a little more than Donald Trump!? The entire section seems incredibly slanted towards the critics. Would anyone object if i added Clinton's comments!? (Giselle 11:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Did Hillary Clinton state any opinion? AFAIK she said "I can't offer any opinion about that at this time." I agree the section needs some updating. I think recent support of famous FBI profiler John Douglas or FBI agent Steve Moore is more notable than what Donald Trump said in 2009.83.7.233.81 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Clinton appears in the "Support for Knox and Sollecito" section together with Cantwell.TMCk (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I confused my facts - I was sure that she said that there was a representative of the US Consulate present at all the trials and the trial was fair (anyone have a link?). Regardless, the section can do with some updating and a major clean-up or it should be removed, as it stands it does not add much to the page. I would imagine that Steve Moore deserves a mention, but under Knox Supporters, he is more than 'media coverage', would you agree? (Giselle 13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

Moore is not notable outside this case so I'm not sure how much weight to give him but I'd like to read what John E. Douglas had to say. Any source for that?TMCk (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe Miller65 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)I disagree about Moore not being notable outside this case. He was the case agent on many high-profile FBI cases including the bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; the bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia; the white supremacist shooting spree at the Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles in 1998; and the Los Angeles component of the attacks of 9/11, after which he testified before the congressional 9/11 Commission................these just name a few high profile interactions that are public knowledge and give Moore notority outside this case.Joe Miller65 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Moore was featured prominently in media, but I agree that Supporters section is appropriate.

I found a quote from John Douglas on Maxim Digital [28] “Amanda is innocent—I’m convinced of it,” says Douglas. “The Italian police completely contaminated the crime scene. Besides, behavior reflects personality, and there is nothing in Knox’s past behavior to indicate she is a murderer. In both cases—West Memphis and Knox—the police allowed theory rather than evidence to direct their investigations, and that is always a fatal error.” --Footwarrior (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Footwarrior. If he's working on this case as the article suggests there must be a lot more written about it, more than a single quote that is. It would be nice if someone familiar with it could bring those sources together as preparation for a probable writeup in context.TMCk (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A good quote that exemplifies well the controversy in this case. I think including it directly could serve that purpose.

So is everyone in agreement that the media coverage section should have a clean up or be diluted into the other parts of the page? I would imagine that the media coverage should engage in conversation of how different media outlets have reported on this case and a little about the paid for Knox PR campaign. The rest should go under supporters of innocence or guilt. BTW Im sorry but even though I sign every single time - it keeps saying I havent signed! Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks --19:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) --Giselle 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say the opposite. The media coverage section should be expanded to better cover the controversy. The hiring of the PR company to counter the bad Italian/British coverage is already in the article, no?LedRush (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversies/disputes

The lede discusses controversies about the prosecution and investigation of the case. However, I do not see any discussion of said controversies in the body. Is there any reliably sourced information about public controversy regarding the handling of the case, aside from the statement from Maria Cantwell and some US commentators? Without explaining why Amanda Knox is innocent, please provide references to sources discussing the controversy. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that it is discussed in the slander case against Knox, the forensics evidence section, and in the commentator section. If you are suggesting that we should have a controversies section regarding the prosecution and investigation, I agree completely. However, that has been resisted by other editors on this board in the past.LedRush (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You did not provide a single source referencing a controversy. Is there a reason you are so adverse to providing sources? Please provide sources. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Further, let's just take the slander case against Knox - how does that evidence a controversy? Use quotes and sources. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not be so uncivil when discussing this topic.

Regarding sources, the sources are in the article and are there for you to read at will. I don't understand how a lawsuit regarding slander charges concerning police conduct are not evidence of a controversy of police conduct. Knox says it was bad, police say it was good. Lawsuit is the controversy and is covered in the sources.LedRush (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think we have different definitions of "controversy." I prefer the one listed at Wikipedia, which states "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion." You have demonstrated "dispute," but you are missing "prolonged" and "public." I once sued someone who sold me a piece of real estate over an omitted detail - does that mean that my apartment is the scene of a controversy? No. Just the existence of the lawsuit doesn't get there. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• LedRush, the onus is on you as the editor restoring this material, to provide sources that explicitly state there has been a controversy. I will put the tag back and give you a day or two to think about this. If no sources can be found for this statement, it will obviously have to come out as at that point it becomes obvious that it is just your opinion, and that won't do. --John (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The slander case is ongoing (prolonged) and is available reported in many sources (public). The article has all the evidence you need. What part of this are you disputing?

Also, when both of you are insulting me, I must confess that I believe your reaction to the edits are probably more based on personality than on fact, and am less inclined to engage in any discussions with you.LedRush (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If the information is in the article, certainly you could just copy it to the talk page? Please? Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of everyone throwing vieled barbs around, maybe there's a better way to state this. Ignoring my suggestion above, it seems this dispute is entirely about the word "controversy". It is possible to summarize the situation without using that word? "The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Questions have been raised about the conduct of the police during their investigation and of the prosecution." I think that's something both sides can support. Then build on that, possibly adding the types of people raising the questions. "raised by some media observers, legal scholars and celebrities" Please note that last part is NOT a suggestion, but something I threw off the top of my head from reading through the talk page. ANYTHING added needs to be supported either directly via a cite or by specific sections in the article. Given the contentious nature of this article, I don't think that asking for sources or specific section is not unreasonable. It might be useful for someone to create a "common" source page listing the common areas people asking for cites about and the cite for it. You can then refer editors to that page, knowing they can quickly find the information. Just saying the cite is in the article is tough - there are 139 references in there! Ravensfire (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Witness lies on the stand

It seems that recent coverage of the de novo trial/appeal are reporting that the witness that puts Knox and Sollecito near the scene near the time of the lied on the stand about several issues, and gave conflicting accounts on others. [29] [30]LedRush (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)