Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Taking down the NPOV tag

What do folks think about removing this? I don't think it is really merited any more and I haven't seen any recent discussions about issues related to this, but I thought I would ask here rather than removing it unilaterally. What do folks think about taking it down? If not, why not? --John (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the idea is that if you add the tag you have to raise a specific neutrality issue; and once the issue is resolved in some way the tag must go. That way it can't be used as a "badge of shame". So, yeh, sensible to remove. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's good to go, now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There are still numerous errors and omissions in the article. I have just noticed that the article is claiming that 'The house was closed as a crime scene from 2 November 2007 until April 2009'. Technically true, perhaps, but omitting the undocumented entries by police and the burglaries of the cottage during that period. On the other hand, the article now seems to be claiming that the death of the victim occurred before 11 pm, giving Knox and Sollecito a cast iron alibi. I suppose that since these errors are not really favouring one particular side, I don't see any reason to oppose removing the NPOV tag. I'll support its removal, as long as the article becomes more accurate. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, if it was closed as a crime scene surely police would be entering it during that time? Unless the Italian definition of a crime scene is radically different :P Burglaries - source? The time issue... we need to work on that then. I haven't got far enough through some of the books (Dempsey's book is like trying to read through a visor of mud, horrid) to comment fully, though my hope is that I get un-bored enough one week to finish them all. However; innacuracies are generally not an NPOV issue, and if nothing specific can be raised the tag should go. Sources to correct the other issues would be good. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They are supposed to document entries to the crime scene. Hence my use of the word 'undocumented'. I can see how a big long word like that would be easy to miss. I'm glad this article is owned by someone like yourself with such a good eye for detail. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

But we can't use stuff that's undocumented. Not without a document stating that it's undocumented. Sources are required; assertions are not sufficient. pablo 22:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the point. Photographic evidence proves that the crime scene was entered and disrupted by police more than once without being documented. But I understand the need of people to maintain the MoMK article in its current state, no matter what. Fine with me. Enjoy the smell of the dustbin of history. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cody, I am not au-fait with Italian procedures for such things - in the UK, certainly, you do not have to document every visit to a closed crime scene (at least, not in the way you are considering). This is an interesting question I suppose; what are the Italian rules on such things, were they broken, and does a RS document this fact? Again; sources for all of this would be good. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well to some extent you do have to argue the point, otherwise you're just some dude saying some stuff! The stuff that you're saying is interesting and possibly relevant but we cannot report it if it is not verifiable pablo 22:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Remove the tag. Glrx (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• I too would support the removal of the tag. It currently seems to have rather little purpose. SuperMarioMan 21:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm ambivalent because all POV tags usually do is establish someone's POV right up there smack on top of the article. CodyJoe's comment that there are still omissions in the article is accurate. For instance, The Times is given as a source -- this article here. One part of that source says the following:

"She has changed her story several times, first saying that she spent the evening and night with her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, then admitting she was at the cottage but only heard Ms Kercher's screaming from her bedroom while Mr Lumumba was in it, then reverting to her original account and claiming that she was not at the cottage at all until the next morning."

But our article says the following: (edited)

Knox was questioned first by the police alone and, later that night, in the presence of a prosecutor. During these interviews, she said that she had gone to the flat with Lumumba......had been in the kitchen when she heard Meredith screaming in her room after she had entered it with Patrick...... later (6 November) she ....... partially retracted her earlier statements.

Our article does not say what the source says, that Knox claimed she was not there at Kercher's cottage, changed her story to was there, and changed later to not there. If our article is intended to say what the source says, it fails. Maybe someone doesn't think the source is a good one, but it is good enough to be used six times elsewhere in the article.Moriori (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Never once in her 'confession' did Knox state that she had entered Meredith's room with Patrick. This is a lie which should not be in the article. I'll correct it immediately. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The source says “Patrick and Meredith went off together into Meredith’s room ...". The confusion here is over who is the 'she' referred to in the sentence in question which I read as:

She^Knox said that she^Knox had been in the kitchen when she^Knox heard Meredith screaming in her^Kercher's room after she^Kercher had entered it with Patrick

 pablo 07:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Time to remove the tag. What is laid out here are only minor mistakes in the article or unsourced speculation which the NPOV-tag isn't made for.TMCk (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What are the "minor mistakes" or "unsourced speculation you mention? Moriori (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything Cody has pointed out.TMCk (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the tag; if there are ongoing minor issues with the article they can be discussed here, but the consensus seemed to be that there was no need for the NPOV tag. --John (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mounting challenge to the neutrality of this article

I have inserted the banner at the top of the page because I strongly believe this article is not neutral. This article does not reflect what current reliable sources are saying about this case. There has been a great deal of coverage lately about the weakness of the prosecution's case. Many sources are now saying that there is no case left, the prosecutor was way off base, there should be a probe of the prosecutor, ect., ect. This article reads like the old tabloid news coverage of this case. It needs to be cleaned up a lot, with new developments added in. I just saw on CNN tonight, for example, a detailed documentary linking the prosecutor's mishandling of the Monster of Florence case and his handling of this case, and basically painting the prosecutor as having bungled this case resulting in a wrongful conviction. That is pretty darn near radical stuff in comparison to the early media coverage of this case. So the coverage by reliable sources has evolved, and this article needs to evolve as well. At the rate this article is going, it will be the only media source left taking a solid guilty view, with no room for, or consideration of, the serious defects in the prosecution's case now being so widely reported in the media. RockSound (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does it do that? I mean "taking a solid guilty view"? --John (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should add a lot about Mignini. He has been roundly criticized in RSs for a long time now. But where would such commentary go? I don't generally like criticism sections, but this may be a case where it is hard to integrate the all of the information and reports into the main body of the article. We could link it to criticism of other Italian authorities as cited in RSs (the police for not recording interviews or for bad crime scene maintenance (the latter is widely reported in RSs, not sure about the former) or the lead forensics expert who has delayed the trial by not providing the court appointed experts with the data they wanted. However, such insertions into the article cannot become a dumping ground for every minor criticism or general attacks on the prosecution case. It should be limited to specific criticisms reported in RSs.LedRush (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone needs a reminder, the prevailing, mainstream point of view is that she is guilty. Knox, Guede, and Sollecito were found guilty of raping and murdering Kercher, and at present sit in Italian jail cells. Allegations of wrongdoing and conspiracies have to be mindful of undue weight and fringe theory guidelines. There's been a 50-year hoo-ha over JFK's assassination as well, with lots of reliable sources talking about a lot of possibilities and supposed evidences. But at the end of the day, we're still at one guy, one gun, one window of a book depository. Tarc (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm afraid that your view of what the "prevailing, mainstream point of view" is may be colored by your own perspective. The sources do not support such a sweeping claim, as there appears to be significant doubt, in reliable sources, about the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. I agree with you on Guede - I've not seen any serious sources raise dobuts about his guilt. But for the other two, it's just factually false to say that there is a single prevailing mainstream point of view. It is really important that our article appropriately reflect that legitimate doubt, rather than treat it as a crackpot conspiracy theory on the order of JFK assassination theories.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, all you need to do is show us some evidence that the prevailing, mainstream point of view is that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. You haven't, and thus your complaint here is completely unsubstantiated. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC))

Eek, I like to call that the "vocal fallacy". Support for Knox (and by association Sollecito) has been great, some of it appears to be legitimate, some seems to be the usual group of conspiracy theorists and some are friends/family who, obviously, will believe in innocence. But I think it is a very great stretch to say that the mainstream view is that they are innocent - most of the mainstream press report they have been convicted and note that there is vocal opposition and doubts expressed over the evidence. That is probably the view to reflect; it is not perfect, but much of the book material published at this stage isn't very good (Dempsey's book, which seems to be upheld as an example of material on the case, is pretty dire, to be polite - and don't get me started on the trashy "pro-guilt" books). I think that you are, unfortunately, suffering from the same problem your point out to Tarc; coloured by a perspective on the case. At this stage she has been convicted, and a new trial is progressing, doubts have been expressed over the evidence and the pair have had a lot of support

It worries me to see statements like I've not seen any serious sources raise dobuts about his guilt; I can see several holes in the evidence against him (as I see plenty of holes in his own version of events). A court has decided he is dead on guilty, but if he had had the vocal level of support as Knox has had I am sure it could have been dragged out just as long :) Hence the vocal fallacy; "he must be guilty because no one is fighting for him"

All of this is irrelevant though - as soon as we start viewing the article from the perspective of who is guilty, and whose guilt could be questioned we have lost. As I said above the prevailing overview is a) these three were convicted b) K & S are undergoing an appeal trial c) K & S have had vocal support from many quarters d) serious concerns have been raised over the evidence and handling of the case. And that is about all we can deal with :)

To RockSound; I have a lot of concern with dragging in all of Mignini's past infractions, definitely with media sources. I think we can deal with it in a few sentences without having to lay out all of the details - largely it is irrelevant. The point to record is that people have questioned him as a prosecutor and noted that he has had problems in the past; the actual problems are largely irrelevant to this story and dragging them in is just an attempt to use Wikipedia to spin the story in a certain way.

it will be the only media source left; ouch, you fatally understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an historical record, not a media source.

I actually read the article as being pretty strong in attempting to undermine the convictions. So perhaps it is actually somewhere in the neutral middle ground. ;) As I detailed above - any record of the events at this stage is going to generally come across as "guilty" - that is the problem with writing events as they come. There is no real rush, and so long as there are not BLP or other major issues with the text there is no harm in taking time over building the material. We do not, and really should not, reflect every cutting edge development as it happens. The bottom line is that whatever we do now... in a few years someone will have access to a decent collection of quality secondary retrospective sources and will be able to build a proper article. We are just throwing something together in the mean time, it is unlikely that what we produce will be problem free.

Regardless; the NPOV tag is intended for specific issues, raised and discussed. You are incorrectly using it as a badge of shame, please remove it. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On an off-topic note, I am unaware of any conspiracy theories around this trial. Most of the accusations regard incompetence and stubborness, not a group of individuals conspiring to lock-up innocent people. When editors here continually trivialize others' opinions by likening them to conspiracy theories, it is quite difficult to have civil conversation with them.

I, unsurprisingly, strongly disagree with Errant's assessment of the vocal fallacy. Current RSs and documentaries on the issue seems to have a strong "pro-innocent" (or more accurately, "pro-enough-doubt-for-a-not-guilty-verdict") bent to them. However, until mass polling is done, I suppose we won't get a definitive answer. In the end, it doesn't really matter. We merely stand to record what the RSs state. They state that the all three have been convicted, but that there is much controversy around Knox and Sollecito. Much of that controversy is around the conduct of the prosecutor's office and the police. This needs to be explicitly and more fully addressed.LedRush (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be expressly clear on this; the article isn't particularly good as it stands. Some parts work hard to push the pro-innocence view, some are staunchly pro-guilt. Most of it is fine, but wholly disjointed and disconnected. But there is simply no way anyone could decisively rework the content at this stage - someone would crush down on it. So I think the best way forward is what we have been doing - picking up threads of new content a few at a time, hashing it out on the talk page and threading it into the article. Eventually a way to join it all up will emerge. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• So, back to the topic in hand; does anybody (who understands how we work here) think the tag is warranted or helpful? --John (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the tag is definitely warranted, but I am not sure that it is useful. Given the choice, I would keep it. However, because it isn't that useful, I won't put up much of a fight to keep it.LedRush (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since my last contribution to this page has mysteriously disappeared, may I humbly beseech the great controllers in the sky to heed my plea and restore the NPOV in dispute tag to this entry? Under Italian law you are not guilty until the process has been completed, which only Guede has done. The other two remain innocent and under trial. Please can this be made clear. I have other points but this will do for starters. The neutrality of this entry is definitely in dispute. I make this request in good faith so please leave it here so that others can see it and do not delete it. I am not Wiki literate so please have the courtesy to reply to me if you wish to and do not censor my contribution. I did not think we were living in George Orwell's 1984 world yet. NigelPScott (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs)

Nigel - if it stated in the accused that the accused are guilty of the murder, then that would be a point of view and thus justify the tag. If it stated in the article that two of the accused are not guilty of the murder (whether because they are undergoing a appeal or because some vocal public opinion says otherwise) , then similarly, that would justify a NPOV tag. The fact is that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty by the court, however, and reporting that fact is not a point of view. It really happened. pablo 18:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan deleted this post above by NigelPScott, but I have restored it. All viewpoints, including minority viewpoints, should be allowed into this Talk page.

To Mr. Jimbo Wales: The aggressive censorship going on with this article, the constant removal of legitimate information, the slanting of the content, and the blocking, banning and harassing of those editors who want this article to be something more than a Brief supporting the Prosecutor, is a disgrace to Wikipedia. What is going on with this article brings discredit and skepticism to the greatest website on the planet. It is all a travesty, both for Wikipedia and for Knox and Sollecito. RockSound (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to RockSound, I would argue that is quite possible to state the case for the NPOV tag without resorting to name-calling such as "controllers in the sky" (or worse), and suggesting that some users at this talk page have read too much Orwell. In future, please reflect carefully before restoring inflammatory remarks that do little to make the atmosphere at the talk page less "aggressive". SuperMarioMan 18:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I need to respond to Errant on one point, because it is important, and to do so I need to quote quite a bit or respond inline in the middle of his post. Either seems a bit awkward, so please forgive me for this long quote: "It worries me to see statements like I've not seen any serious sources raise dobuts about his guilt; I can see several holes in the evidence against him (as I see plenty of holes in his own version of events). A court has decided he is dead on guilty, but if he had had the vocal level of support as Knox has had I am sure it could have been dragged out just as long :) Hence the vocal fallacy; 'he must be guilty because no one is fighting for him'".

My response: whoa! I'm not saying that Guede is guilty. I'm not saying anyone is guilty. I'm not saying anyone is innocent either. That's not what Wikipedians should ever be doing. What I'm saying is that there are reliable sources - lots of them - which raise serious doubts about the conviction, and that therefore it is just wrong to say that the "mainstream view" is that she is guilty.

There is no justification for us to act as a court of law. We are not a court of law. If you've read various things and come to the conclusion that she's guilty (or innocent), you have to be very careful not to let your personal view color your work here. We are here to merely report fairly on what reliable sources are saying.

My point is this: reliable sources are raising serious doubts about her guilt. We have to report on that. Even if some people think she's guilty. Tarc suggested - in a factually mistaken manner - that objections here are like those of JFK conspiracy theorists. That's obviously false, when those objections are based on serious requests that reliable sources be taken seriously.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you see a need for the NPOV tag given the current state of the article? Do you think having such a tag will help us improve the article? --John (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for myself (and I suspect most people in the entire universe, I neither know nor care about the actual guilt or otherwise of the two appellants. I do agree that the questions that have been raised about the investigation and trial need summarising in this article. I am concerned, however, that the many, many attempts to use these doubts to retry the case on this page will grow in force, especially as at least one editor has concluded that they have the founder's blessing to play Sherlock Holmes here. pablo 18:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo; yes, but the problem is that because Knox has such vocal support that becomes prominent - hence the vocal fallacy. As many problems may exist with Geude's conviction, but no one is bothering to raise them. The problem we face here is that whilst she is convicted, they are currently undergoing retrial, leaving a things in limbo. As you say, we are not a court of law, and when the court of law finally makes up its mind over guilt or innocence then we will have something definite to record. In the meantime I am just concerned that the article risks suffering from being a court of innocence; a lot of the content that is demanded to be added increases weight to those trying to show innocence. I agree with what you are saying about objections raised in RS's - but FWIW I think we are doing a decent job of picking up those threads bit by bit. Where the problem comes with things like trying to mud-sling the prosecutor, or stress that this is a re-trial and she is currently... (what? my understanding from picking at some Italian law sources is that her conviction is not overturned, but she is simply being retried - I haven't yet found a RS about this)

All I mean by the vocal fallacy is this; we should take care that people are not being given undue weight simply by virtue of shouting loudly.

I think that detailing specific objections to evidence/the trial as mentioned in RS's is a different issue from some of the material being pushed.

I largely agree with what LedRush has said above; except I do not see the relevance of the details of past infractions on the part of the prosecutor (other than to stress what a naughty boy he is :)) and think we can do fine carefully summarising objections to him. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems like all we hear recently on this article is long speeches from Errant. I ask you the same question I did a few weeks ago, who put you in charge of this article? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to respond in essay form? i.e. if you want to attack me Cody at least make a decent job at it --Errant ^(chat!) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I would argue that "long speeches" that discuss content, rather than contributors, are quite useful and constructive. In general, it is much less useful and constructive to snipe at contributors, rather than content. Cody, please bear this in mind. SuperMarioMan 19:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Now if only the established editors would follow this advice, what a wonderful place this could be...LedRush (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't decide if this is a snipe at established editors (of which you are yourself one) or not ... pablo 13:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I admit that the article is better than it was when Mr. Wales first became involved, but it is a long, long way from being neutral. The non neutral tag is amply warranted. The discussion of the evidence in the case of ten gives little sense of the power of the defense rebuttal. The discussion of the luminol prints is a case in point. There is no science, logic, or forensic protocol in the world that would entitle the judge to say the bare footprints were made in blood.The continued mentioning of a shoeprint is just bizarre. The print was from the same type of shoe that Guede had and Amanda was never shown to have a shoe like that. Moreover, Massei tacitly concedes the point, maintaining throughout his discussion that Amanda Knox was barefoot. Of course we should have more information on Mignini and to do so is fair commentary not mudslinging. He stands convicted of serious crimes which have parallels in this case. He has also shown a willingness to use the full power of the state to try to crush and financially bankrupt those who criticize him. The treatment of Spezi foreshadows the treatment of Curt Knox and Edda Mellas. Finally, this suggestion that there might be as many problems with Guede's conviction is just mystifying. Guede stipulated to the evidence against him in order gain leniency. His DNA is all over the crime scene and he has not challenged the fact that it is his DNA. PietroLegno (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be left up at least until after the appeal is over. I see no reason to remove it. It at least gives warning to the reader that not everything in the article is accepted as fact. Issymo (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My view is that it needs left up. I see many holes within it, I see constant battles, people still being blocked left and right. People that were great editors are still blocked. The argument still continues here clearly, that it is the Knox supporters trying this and that. Honestly it is just as much the Anti Knox ones who want to see guilt, just the same. So let us not call the kettle black. This is a huge situation, regardless if anyone cares to note or admit it, and it needs properly fixed. The Admins who blocked everyone in the last tirade of events have fled instant as Mr. Wales came to the page. isn't that ironic, yet those people are still blocked. The issue and vast pot of excuses given for blocking this and that is a shame a real shame. As Mr. Wales said above, Wiki is a great site, and once again I will say it is a sad, sad, sad, shame to see it carried on like a school playground of bully land owners. This has severely lost my faith in what I thought was an upstanding place. It really is unreal to see it. I have been polite and kind to all, at all times that I have been here and I have been attempted to be shoved, but I have a right to say my peace as well.--Truth Mom (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In the end..... the TRUTH is going to come out, then where does that leave this standing?........ Something to think about, really...--Truth Mom (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But the TRUTH™, if and when it does come out, will not change Wikipedia policy of recording what is reported by others. We cannot speculate here about what that truth might turn out to be. pablo 08:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Truth Mom and very well said. The recent targeting and topic ban of Wikid77 is an exmple of what is wrong with this page and Wikipedia in general. Mlauba and other editors who were a huge part of the problems with this article for a long time and banned many editors with views different than theirs showed up to support Wikid77 being topic banned. I think it is real disgrace what goes on in this page. It really gives me a negative view of Wikipedia. Why can't this behavior by these admins and editors be stopped. They are really the ones that should be topic banned if anyone. They've learned to play the system though. I don't think the NPOV banner should be removed while these editors are still involved.Issymo (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything that you actually wish to discuss about the article here? If so could you restate it without including your opinion of other editors? pablo 08:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In general, when an NPOV tag is placed on an article, it is in response to specific, perceived problems, which are then raised at the talk page. It is not intended to serve as a "badge of shame" (as Errant puts it), or to indicate that certain editors dislike other editors ("I don't think the NPOV banner should be removed while these editors are still involved"). That is categorically not how this sort of thing is done. SuperMarioMan 10:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just two quick answers to Errant and John. Errant, you seem to be arguing that *in your judgment* we see a lot more reliable sources reporting on Amanda Knox because she (or her supporters) is making a lot of noise, and yet, there are just as many problems with Guede's conviction, so therefore we should reduce our coverage of reliable sources about Amanda? If I understand you correctly, I think my answer is that it is not up to us to judge such matters, that would be synthesis and original research. What the reliable sources say, is what we must follow. I have seen no reliable source seriously questioning Rudy's conviction, so I don't know what we could say about it.

John, you ask if I think the article should have an NPOV tag now. I think that as long as there are legitimate conflicts here about whether or not the article is neutral, we should have an NPOV tag so as to warn our readers that we haven't reached consensus. Unlike some, I am an eternal optimist, and I think we actually can reach consensus. I agree with SuperMarioMan, too: the best thing to do is to raise specific objections to specific parts of the article, with proposed revisions and quality sources. A general rant "this is not neutral" isn't as good as more specific things. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you've missed my point slightly. You brought up Guede with I've not seen any serious sources raise dobuts about his guilt; what I meant by the "vocal fallacy" is the assumption that appears to have been made that Knox pro-innocence advocates probably have a point because Geude hasn't had the same level of support. Some of the criticism of the case and prosecution is valid; and expressed by experts on these matters. On the other hand some of it is not as good criticism, for example the critique of the prosecutor, and we risk giving too much weight to that aspect partly because it is so vocally expressed alongside the more legitimate stuff. The point I was making r.e. Guede is that I could pick out several similar issues to raise and advocate about, that people have not done so is not because they cannot, but because Guede opted for the fast track process and does not appear to have anyone to advocate for him. And this is the crux of the matter; don't lend too much weight to the poor criticism of Knox's trial process just because someone is advocating it (i.e. the "vocal fallacy").

I'm not saying we should not be describing these things, at all. But Mignini is a good example; that he has been criticised (and by whom) is good content to work in. As is content about his reactions related to the trial (court cases). Exactly what bad things he has done in the past, or views on his actions as censorship etc. need to be considered very carefully - I am sure you agree that saying he has been criticised and then laying out all his dirty linen is basically advocacy. Finding the point where we go beyond simply recording the detail and into reciting advocacy is a fine line. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• No offense Wales, but "may be colored by your own perspective" was a very ignorant statement; I did not come to this article until after that "open letter" blog post prompted your own intervention. Knox and the rest can rot in prison for life or be freed tomorrow, it doesn't really matter to me. What I would like to see here is an accurate and WP:NPOV-adhering article on the murder, as that is the actual heart of the subject matter here, not the conspiracy notion that there was a cover-up, a frame-up, or a case of police incompetence or rush to judgement regarding the current convicts. The Knox-is-innocent is given its due coverage in the article already, if we give it any more (even though that isn't to the the liking of the various advocacy blogs, some of which have representatives here), then that tips into WP:UNDUE territory. And we really need to bar people of the "the TRUTH is going to come out" mentality from this article. Editors like that art a part of the long-running problem.
• There is no call for the NPOV tag to remain at this time, all it is being used for right now is a badge of shame, to mark an article that some do not like. Unless specific and seriously problematic content can be pointed to in detail, right now, then there is no cause for the tag. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Badge of Shame"? No, It is meant to protect the reader and let them know the POV and information in this article are disputed. That is correct and the banner should be put back up.Issymo (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there we have a problem. Because the {{NPOV}} template expressly says "Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." and notes that it is a template purely for editors. If it is being used for the purpose of informing readers of issue that is an incorrect usage, the policy was specifically put together that way to avoid situation where people couldn't get their POV into articles and used the tag to try and undermine the content. Or to put it another way; your description of way this tag should be used is the definition of "badge of shame". --Errant ^(chat!) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I just don't know how to talk to you about this. You don't seem to be hearing me. I'm trying really hard to understand you, and if you're saying something correct, I am not hearing it. You talk about "the conspiracy notion that tehre was a cover-up, a frame-up, or a case of police incompetence or rush to judgment regarding the current convicts". My point is that reliable sources contradict you on the point that at least some of these things are a "conspiracy notion".

Yes, there are conspiracy theories in the world, crazy ones that make no sense, etc. JFK assassination theories - the example you gave - are a good example. But there are also cases, lots of them, where there are legitimate objections to convictions, cases where there are cover-ups, frame-ups, police incompetence, rush to judgment. So I'm not getting where or why or how you feel justified in calling the work of literally dozens of reliable sources calling this particular case into question, for reasons that - even if we don't agree with them in the end - don't seem particularly wild or crazy - "conspiracy notion"s that need to be minimized in the article.

We have to follow the sources, and the sources are quite clear.

If all you are saying is that some people who have edited this article in the past have been unreasonable, well, sure. On all sides. But you seem to be arguing for more than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to Mr. Wales assessment here, all Tarc needs to do is give some evidence about what the "prevailing view" is in this case. At this point, it is just his subjective opinion which is at this time unsubstantiated. All Tarc needs to do is lay the foundation. There is no objective evidence one way or the other about what most people accept about this case and reliable sources have certainly questioned the verdict and continue to do so. So I would say the burden is on Tarc. There's no need to complain. He needs to lay down a proper foundation. That has not been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeniusApprentice (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The prosecutor & other criticism

So, detaching slightly from the above stuff... perhaps we could work on unifying criticism of the prosecution and the evidence. Currently a lot of it is dribbled around the article. For example Mignini; his conviction is slap bang in the middle of the trial section,despite occurring afterwards. Could we work a section between "Judge's Report" and "Appeals" which includes that note about Mignini as well as the first paragraph of "Appeals" and work out from there?

On Mignini specifically; I don't believe we should be detailing all of the things he has done that are objected to - it's a level of detail too far, but we can do a brisk (couple of sentences) over the details as raised in RS's.

Any thoughts on this? --Errant ^(chat!) 19:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. --John (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would argue that a few more (concise) sentences on Mignini would maintain due weight. I agree that the current placement of the note regarding the conviction is distracting. SuperMarioMan 20:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. A whole section of critcism of the prosecution. There should be sections on Mignini, Stefanoni, Giobbi, Errors made by the foresic team, the flying squad, Massei. There is a lot of meat to put in this new section. Issymo (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is to simply gather what us already in the article. Whether it can or should be expanded, being mindful of becoming a coat-rack for criticism of living people, is another matter. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an important consideration. Moderation is required. Listing each and every one of Mignini's misdeeds, for example, would be pushing it. SuperMarioMan 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment on photos

I have concerns that the photo labled - Pillow with Guede's palm print in blood - is way too graphic. It shows to much blood, and the only purpose is to show the pillow? Is there any other reasons to keep that photo? Also the Capanne prison sign is boring and unnecessary in my opinion. It would be more relevant to include a photo of the knife or something else.Issymo (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an image of the murder weapon would be useful. In my opinion, it would certainly advance the reader's understanding of this topic more than the current images of the bra clasp and the pillow (of course, the murder scene image is useful). However, removal of images that are not free content and not in the public domain is determined according to the extent to which such images adhere to the non-free content criteria. Wikipedia hosts many images that can be considered objectionable, but it does censor itself on account of such images. SuperMarioMan 10:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I needs to be noted that the knife mentioned above is the alleged murder weapon.BruceFisher (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Forensic evidence

"Her body had been disrobed and moved some time after death.[27]" This is an outrageous inclusion and it is stated as FACT! The NPOV BANNER needs to go up immediately. What kind of line is this to be included in this article. This violates all NPOV basics and it isn't even something the Massei Report has written about. This statement was chosen to show guilt in this article. This line needs to be removed and the NPOV banner needs to be put back up. This also demonstrates a futher problem of using the same sources for different trials. The trials are completely seperate and stand on their own. The source used is from Rudy Guede's trial but the Massei Report is not saying the body was moved. It looks like the two trial conflict. Issymo (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with using two, essentially primary, sources in this way. Which is the accurate one to be used over the other? Why is Massei more definitive (and which reliable sources identify it as so)? Surely removing this sourced information could be viewed be a pro-innocence POV exclusion (yhink carefully on this please)? I'm not opposed to revamping the evidence section per-se; for example in the next sentence, in a section where we are laying out the various pieces of evidence, there is a sentence expressing a defence argument against the evidence. We need a secondary source (or several) which mesh the evidence together - one that will deal with it neutrally. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But I thought we had secondary sources that said this wasn't true (that she wasn't moved after death. Shouldn't the secondary sources trump the primary? While we are waiting, I'll take a quick look for the secondary sources.LedRush (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

One source [1].LedRush (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is a misunderstanding. From the terminology stated, it is somewhat implicit that the killer disrobed her and moved her (presumably prior to raping). The Massei report doesn't necessarily have to state anything about it and the line doesn't imply that it was Knox & Sollecito (I would assume Guede). It isn't hard to believe and Issymo's overreaction and cry to throw up the NPOV tag is unwarranted. The ABC source is comparing the movie but they got their facts wrong when stating that no source had stated it (Micheli), so there is no reason to accept the ABC source. The some time in the statement is ambiguous.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not an overreation that the article states as FACT that MK's body was disrobed and moved AFTER DEATH. The Massei report does not say this. The actual evidence doesn't say this either. Issymo (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that this is a BLP violation (the movement/non-movement of the body doesn't implicate or exonerate any of the three) the sourcing for the movement of the body is poor and contradictory. This sentence should go; not because it's a violation, but because it's inadequately supported. pablo 08:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Question for Mr. Wales

I am archiving this because it was directly to me personally, but it was a very general statement, and I think we're better off working on specifics--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Mr. Wales: People from all over the US and the world contribute to your website, both financially and in terms of donating time, effort, expertise and background materials, believing the mantra that this is "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." A basic tenent of this website is that when writing about a living person, care must be taken to present information factually, neutrally and based on reliable source materials, so that defamation can be avoided. Why do those rules and tenets not apply to this article? Why is it that some editors and administrators have been allowed to literally hijack this article and treat it as their very own pro-guilt campaign article, not Wikipedia's article? They have chosen to use this article and website to further their belief that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of a horrible sex crime. Yet, if these two students are indeed factually innocent of the crime, then this Kercher article is misleading and defamatory. The guidelines of BLP are not being followed, and the article has been defamatory for many months. These editors and administrators can simply disappear and leave Wikipedia holding the bag when the likely acquittal of Knox and Sollecito is handed down by the Court in Italy in a few months. How would you like it if you were falsely accused of a crime and a major website painted you as a horrible sex killer, while you were still in court fighting for your very life? Think of the pain and humiliation that you would feel. And the outrage. Well, I can just imagine that that is how the Knox and Sollecito families feel. Any NEUTRAL presentation of this story requires that editors who do not necessarily believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty be allowed to edit this article, yet they are systematically banned or blocked, as just happened to Wikid77 a couple of days ago. There have been a dozen or more editors blocked for trying to add some balance to this article. Any editor who tries to participate in the article who does not bow to the pro-guilt view is quickly hauled off to the ANI board for a taste of intimidation. All of their well sourced material that does not fit the pro-guilt mode will be removed or diluted or slanted. Their work will be reverted and reverted and reverted and deleted. I greatly admire your website and refer to it all the time--many times per day--as a reference, but I often wonder if Wikipedia is broken when it comes to the Kercher article. Can it be fixed? Why not start here on this Talk page? What steps can be taken to address these issues in the Kercher article in an effective way? Can we develop a concrete plan of action to remedy these problems? It is an honor to speak with you. I trust in your wisdom and I hope you will reply. Either way, thank you for your time. RockSound RockSound (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC) You might be better off posting this on his talk page. However re "Any NEUTRAL presentation of this story requires that editors who do not necessarily believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty be allowed to edit this article, yet they are systematically banned or blocked ... " I'd like to point out that, as such an editor myself, I have not had that problem. pablo 10:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Amanda e gli altri"

I've reverted this unexplained removal of "Amanda e gli altri" from the books section. Does anyone know of a reason why it should not be included here? I haven't read it, but the book itself has been criticised quite heavily. Is a book being bad reason enough to exclude though? Some of the others here are pretty ropey themselves. pablo 10:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The defamation case resulting from the publication of Sarzanini's book is mentioned in the article, so it is only logical that it should appear in the "Books" section. In a recent discussion about the books, I believe that consensus favoured notability (as evident in secondary sources) as a means to distinguish which publications should or should not be included. SuperMarioMan 10:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.LedRush (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[Own comment removed by Issymo [2]. TMCk (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]

I removed my comment. I even commented on why below. Is there some reason it is deemed necessary to add this comment that I removed my comment? Why? I've removed comments before without this being done. Issymo (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it too much - the usual approach for comments you want to retract but have received a reply is to strike through them using <s></s>. That's because missing comments can cause confusion reading back later :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, even so ... that Sarzanini's book has been censured for its content about Knox would suggest that it warrants a place on the list. The article itself mentions this book (but no others except Dempsey's, if I remember correctly), so it would be unusual to omit that one from the list and retain others that are not mentioned elsewhere. The Guardian link at the foot of the article reveals some additional Italian-language publications that are not currently included, but these are perhaps not notable enough to add. SuperMarioMan 13:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Withdrew my comment, got the book mixed up with another one.Issymo (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reviewing the Guardian link, I can find four titles that are currently not included on the list. WP:FUTURE applies to one of them, two others do not appear to be particularly notable, the fourth is a possibility: I refer to Meredith: Luci e Ombre a Perugia (Meredith: Lights and Shadows in Perugia), by Mastronardi and Castellini. There is a bit of external coverage here, here and here. Apparently Mastronardi, a forensics professor, testified in the 2009 trial, which may add weight to its potential for inclusion. On the other hand, I doubt that its exclusion is too detrimental. SuperMarioMan 03:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Language Intended to Clarify Status of Defendants

Here is an example of the type of blocking of information that goes on here. I attempted to clarify that the defendants were convicted in separate proceedings. But Pablo deleted that edit. Why is that verboten information?

I also attempted to clarify that Guede's current status is that of a final conviction due to his two appeals failing. But Pablo also deleted that information. Again, this central, most crucial information is somehow off limits?

I also attempted to clarify that Knox and Sollecito are not appealing their sentences of 25/26 years, they are appealing their convictions. The existing language is confusing. But Pablo deleted this information.

I added that "they are currently in the appeals process", but this is forbidden information?

Here is how the second paragraph in the lede read after my edits:

Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher's flatmates, were convicted of her sexual assault and murder in separate proceedings. Guede's conviction was upheld in two appeals and is now final. He is serving a sentence of 16 years. Sollecito and Knox are currently in the appeals process. A new trial for Sollecito and Knox began in December 2010 and is expected to conclude in late 2011.

Here is the language that existed before and that Pablo restored.

Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher's flatmates, were convicted of her sexual assault and murder. Guede is serving a sentence of 16 years; Sollecito and Knox are appealing against their convictions for 25 and 26 year sentences, respectively. A new trial for Sollecito and Knox began in December 2010 and is expected to conclude in late 2011.

What I wrote is factually accurate. The paragraph without those corrections is confusing and misleading. RockSound (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rocksound is correct, the current version is misleading. Pablo, instead of reverting, could you try fixing what you perceive to be issues with Rocksound's edits?LedRush (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither paragraph states that they are appealing their sentences. They are appealing against their convictions. I've no objection to stating that the trials were separate. pablo 15:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think the current version is misleading, but there is merit to RockSounds suggestions (I would avoid the use of the word "final" though). How about:

Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted on XXXX (in a fast-track trial) of sexual assault and murder, he is serving a sentence of 16 years and has exhausted his appeals process. Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher's flatmates, were convicted in a separate trial, concluded on XXXX, and are serving 25 and 26 years respectively. Both have appealed the convictions and are undergoing a new trial which began in December 2010 and is expected to conclude in late 2011

How's that? I think it makes sense to deal with the two somewhat separately seeing as they are distinctly different processes at different stages and with differing types of coverage. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The new text has its merits. However, if Guede's (confirmed) 16-year sentence is to be mentioned, shouldn't the (initial) 26- and 25-year sentences against Knox and Sollecito also be mentioned? I know that the appeal has yet to conclude, but these were the sentences imposed in December 2009, were they not? It seems curious to me that the lead section should omit them. SuperMarioMan 15:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems to cover it. The wording 'in the appeals process' was a bit vague. pablo 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) agreed.LedRush (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I added it because there seems agreement on this. No prejudice for changing it again if we decide otherwise. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• And that's how BRD works! pablo 15:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that Guede has a "final conviction" under Italian law. I see no reason not to include such a crucial fact.

There is a very big difference between someone still going through the appeals process and someone who has a final conviction. RockSound (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, "exhausted the appeals process" means just that, really, but I suppose it cold be made even clearer. pablo 15:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I was going for something that was explicit on what he options he has run out of; "final conviction" could be considered vague - unless it is specific terminology under Italian law, of course, in which case it would make more sense. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not fair or reasonable to go ahead and substitute paragraphs before everyone has had a chance to weigh in. You wait just eleven minutes before substituting a whole paragraph that I had been working on? This process is just ridiculous. I can see why so many people have dropped out.

Also, Knox and Sollecito are not serving sentences. That will not happen until a final conviction has been entered. They have been in pre-trial detention since 2007 due to being deemed flight risks.

The term final conviction is a term of art and it is included in the Italian Constitution.RockSound (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is fair. Do you have a source that discusses this specific terminology in Italian law, we could work up a tweak to that sentence to get the right wording in. It simply seemed a little on the wrong side of trying to stress his guilt :) happy to tweak that. According to my reading of the sources and law, Knox and Sollecito are convicted and are currently serving out those sentences; the new trial does not overturn the conviction but will supplant it. Again, happy to consider RS's that discuss the distinctions involved (every time I ask about this, though, none are provided) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of replacing content - don't forget you are replacing someone else's content too. It is just what happens. There were specific (and legitimate) problems with what you added and I tried to clarify them by working in the two viewpoints. As pointed out, this is how the process goes - and if you disagree with the new content propose specifics (here on the talk) as I did and see what the response is like. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(2ecs) Rocksound: Errant's text is not etched in stone. It is merely something we generally agreed to be ok. As with all edits, it can be improved, as Errant, Pablo and you have all attempted to do. Errant is right; this is just the natural editing process.LedRush (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I see RockSound removed reference to the sentences - I added it back but clarified the wording to say they were given the sentences. Do we have a source to explain they are currently not serving the sentences? Every source I have read says they are serving them, so if we have one to clarify this as wrong then that would be good. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that Knox and Sollecito are not yet convicted until a final conviction has been entered. That is the way it works in Italy and it is included in the Italian Constitution. Just pull up a translation of the Italian Constitution and you will see it for yourself. They most definitely are not serving any sentences before a final conviction.RockSound (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Where do the defendants reside while the appeals process plays out? Tarc (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, here is the problem as best I can lay it out, lets see is we can work this through (without too much OR). Firstly the Italian Constitution mentions guilt, not conviction. (in fact it says A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed., but passes little comment on what constitutes a "final sentence" or how they are considered during appeal process) I can't find the specific legislature in Italian that deals with defining all this. However as best I can make out:

• They were convicted in '09 of the crimes, but can appeal the convictions in two courts (this is nothing different from similar legal systems)
• They were handed sentences with the conviction (again, nothing different there)
• They may still be simply detained and not yet serving sentences whilst the appeal and retrial occurs (again, this is not at all uncommon)

There are some clear facts here - a court convicted them, they have been given sentences, they can appeal to two higher courts before that avenues is exhausted, they are doing so and a retrial is occurring. The two ambiguous factors are how they are considered legally (convicted or not - though Italian legislation suggests they are considered convicted) and whether they are yet serving sentences (Italian sources are quiet on this)

Here we have a problem because all of the reliable sources state they were convicted and are serving sentences. If we can get together some sources to work out the specifics we need to do so - as it stands these RS's we have to stick to are fairly clear :S (I'm definitely open to clarifying this; perhaps adding "Since their arrest in 2007 they have been in pre-trial detention and have not yet served any sentence" - if we can source it). The core question here is; to what extent is the wording of RS's a suicide pact? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Though Errant is wrong on his first bullet point above (the Italian system of appeals is very different than what an average English speaker would suggest), his point is 100% right. We can't conduct OR to get to the "truth", and RSs seem pretty consistent that these guys are convicted and serving their sentences.LedRush (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is confusion here because they have been in prison since they were arrested and remain there. They were placed there because it was argued that Knox was a flight risk and that both were dangerous and might offend again. This is not automatic in Italy - many accused murderers remain free until the end of the process. Mignini the prosecutor is himself guilty of Abuse of Office and was handed a prison term but remains at liberty during his appeal process. He is also spoken of as guilty although his trial process is not complete. If Knox and Sollecito were to remain guilty at the end of the process, no doubt time served would be deducted from their sentences. Because this is an Italian case, but this entry is mainly read by people in the UK and USA, it should be made clear the 'guilty' at this stage in Italy is not the same as 'guilty' in the UK and USA and we should not draw simplistic parallels. NigelPScott (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm no. They were remanded for the first trial no? Or have I got that wrong? Then after the first trial finished with their convictions, they were sentenced, and commenced serving those sentences. Then they appealed. Were they declared "not guilty" at this point? Is this the way in Italy? pablo 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)and before I'm accused of 'sniping' or any similar shite; I really, really would like this explained, with links to supporting sources. I have been seeking this here for over a year now  pablo 20:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that appeals in Italy happen de novo, and none of the burdens of proof are different than in the original trial. The defendants have been convicted, but are presumed innocent for the purposes of the trial. (And if you don't want to be accused of being sniping or being bitey, I would not start off sentences saying sarcastic and rude things like "erm no". And don't call other people's characterizations of your behavior as "shite").LedRush (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just about about my understanding of the legal position, and the trial de novo too. I don't much care about the shite; it's irrelevant to me whether it's considered "sniping". pablo 21:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you LedRush, you are right. I am trying to edit in good faith here. I know that other editors have been blocked for responding to comments like those made by pablo so I will not comment on what he wrote. There is a re trial. It is part of the Italian process. The defendants are not in prison because they have started serving their sentences. They have not. They would be free now if they had not initially been incarcerated because the prosecutor persuaded a judge that they might be be violent and/or a flight risk as I explained above. This is why prosecutor Mignini is still walking about in Perugia althought he was found guilty of abuse of office. He is waiting for his appeal to start. If Knox and Sollecito are still ruled guilty at the end of the process, they will then start serving their sentences and time spent in custody may be taken into account. I hope I have made this clear. This is why I believe that for reasons of accuracy the Wikipedia entry should explain that Guede is definitively guilty but Knox and Sollecito are not. Vilification has played a big part in this case and I do not believe that Wikipedia should add to it, even unthinkingly. NigelPScott (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to push unduly on this - but is there a reliable source that says this? Because all of the current sources say something completely different. And I just read an analysis piece in an Italian magazine which actually did touch on this issue which said they are now officially serving sentences.

I have no objection to explaining these distinctions, but we can only record RS's --Errant ^(chat!) 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I, however do wish at this point to push. Nigel, where are the sources, do you have them please? pablo 23:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have found this source and it refers to the specific section of the Italian Consitution that states that defendants are not considered guilty until they are at the end of the legal process, "3.4 Principles underlying pre-trial detention (I leave a chunk out here) Presumption of innocence means that a person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law (Art. 6 (2) ECHR). The presumption of innocence is also codified in Art. 27(2) of the Italian Constitution, which states that “the defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed”.
The document is a PDF. This part is on page 22. The title is: "Pre-trial Detention in the European Union - An Analysis of Minimum Standards in Pre-trial Detention and the Grounds for Regular Review in the Member States of the EU - A.M. van Kalmthout, M.M. Knapen, C. Morgenstern (eds.) ISBN: 978-90-5850-524-8 The web address is - http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/criminal/procedural/doc/chapter_15_Italy_en.pdf NigelPScott (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There's absolute guilt, which applies to the person who committed the crime. (Often this is a bit of a philosophical thing; to know for a fact, beyond all doubt whatsoever, that the person actually did it you would have to have some pretty strong evidence, or be that person yourself).
There's presumption of innocence, which applies to anyone accused of a crime.
There's being found guilty by a court, (which is not the same as absolute guilt mentioned above: we cannot state "person X is guilty" as a fact, but we can state "person X was found guilty by Court Y on date Z.")
Someone on appeal has been found guilty. The fact of the appeal does not change that. They are presumed innocent for the purposes of the appeal trial, but the fact of the appeal doesn't actually negate the original verdict. I can't see anything in this document that states that the situation in Italy is wildly different from the UK or US in this respect. And I think it's stretching things to breaking point to suggest that we should not mention the original verdict until the appeal is over because to do so would be biased. pablo 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The original verdict must be mentioned. I agree with Pablo's breakdown above. My point was that because during the appeals the appellants/defendants have a new trial and are still presumed innocent (two huge differences than the US system), this should be clearly stated. Also, we need to be careful of using terminology that implies something different to someone familiar with common-law legal structures (primarily native english speakers (the readers)) than is actually true for the Italian legal system.

To sharpen our discussion, what current language does anybody object to?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs)

I agree with (anonymous) above. I would suggest replacing the current sentences with something like this: "Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher’s flatmates, were found guilty of sexual assault and murder in a separate trial on 4 December 2009 but these convictions are presently under appeal. Under Italian law, defendants are presumed innocent throughout the legal process and a guilty verdict at any stage does not change this status." NigelPScott (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As always; please present a source that makes the necessary distinction in this case. Note that all of the above talks about guilt and we refer only to conviction - it is better to stick to the facts (that they have been convicted). If we can source this whole thing of specifically not being considered guilty until a certain level of appeal is given (which, btw, is the same in the UK) then I think it is good article material but a bit stretching it for the lead. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see anything in this source to justify including the phrase "Under Italian law, defendants are presumed innocent ..." - they are presumed innocent for the purposes of the trial, but that's about it isn't it? pablo 19:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see support here for Rocksound adding the presumption of innocence to the lede. Perhaps there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a trial de novo is. It's a do-over. It's not a trial where the presumption is now the defendant is guilty. (By the way, there are trials de novo in the US -- it's just not the typical procedure. I was even involved in an appeal via a trial de novo.) Glrx (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Ravensfire (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave the reference above in the Italian Constitution where it clearly states that defendants are considered innocent until the end of the process regardless of any interim court decision. This is not the same as saying that any defendant in a trial is presumed innocent. There is even a separate legal category for prisoners in an intermediate state i.e. convicted in one court but still undergoing trial at a later stage: "imputato". People in this category are kept in separate prisons from those who have completed the process. This is different from the US and UK. I believe this distinction needs to be clear in the article. I can understand that other editors may argue that this distinction is irrelevant and does not need to be mentioned in the article because the defendants have been found guilty in one court, but I believe it is an important distinction. What I cannot understand is how anyone can question the facts. The Italian Constitution must be considered a reliable source. Knox and Sollecito are in a legally distinct category from Guede, plain and simple. NigelPScott (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no objection to including this material in the article. Such fine points do not belong in the lede -- especially when terms such as a trial de novo already imply the assumption of innocence. You apparently also have some mistaken beliefs about the US judicial system. If X has been convicted in a lower court, launches an appeal, and then dies of a heart attack before the appeal is complete, then his non-final conviction can be wiped out. Kenneth Lay's conviction for the Enron fiasco, for example, was abated. Now Lay's abatement does belong in his lede because the abatement was executed. Glrx (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bigger improvements

This actually highlights something that I've found fascinating about this article in general. There's a lot of work to add seemingly small details and minutia to the article. But oddly, some fairly big events in the trail are pretty bare. There is nothing about any of the suspects being denied bail (casual mention of bail denied here) or why in the article. This source mentions that Knox's lawyers appealed bail all the way to the Court of Cassation. I've read several summaries of the court system, and it seems that the Corte d'Assise d'Appello is allowed to decide if the defendants, if convicted, could be released on bail or not. This whole mess just needs some good sources to straighten it out. This is an unusual court system and areas that differ from the US system need to be pointed out and explained with sources to prevent wrong assumptions. Ravensfire (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This source points to the initial bail being denied in November 2007, with the final appeal being rejected in April 2008. Going to work both into the article. The sources are tolerable, but would love for someone to find better ones with more information about why, etc. Ravensfire (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, the burdens of proof in an original trial and an appeal are the same? And appellants can bring in new evidence under the same rules as in the original trial? I am surprised to learn this.LedRush (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Not all of the appeals courts certainly (but then, not all of the appeals courts work like that in Italy, apparently) but the main appeals track is, yes, a trial de novo and you can introduce further evidence. I can tell you this for certain from experience. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. You learn something new...LedRush (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong. English appeals are not trials de novo. English appeal courts try questions of law not fact. LedRush, you were right in the first place. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Some are, some aren't. The difference that exists is that the English courts automatically bump major cases to the crown court (and appeals thereafter are not de novo). Were this specific trial performed here today, no, it would not be treated the same. I was a little intellectually dishonest with my answer with the reply (not deliberately) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Guede stated that they had become intimate

We don't usually use weasel words like this. Do we mean that they had sex? --John (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded a bit according to source but still needs some ce I guess.TMCk (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. I further tweaked the wording of this section. --John (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And by that you made it more neutral while preserving the facts I'd say.TMCk (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting sources re. Guede's record

Regarding the following entry in Guede's section:
"Though he had no serious criminal record at the time of the murder,[3] Guede was known to the police as a drug dealer and had some minor drug offenses on his record."[4]
One source clearly states that he had "no criminal record" based on one of the reasons for his sentence to be cut down while the other says he did what seems to me is based on an assumption that a person known by the police must have a criminal record. The point is, and this is a BLP issue, we can't trust and use both sources by just hiding the contradiction in between them. I think we need further sources that are confirming one source or the other. Meanwhile this part of the section should be left out completely or at least made hidden till such confirmation is provided. And BTW, changing "criminal record" to simply "record" as was done is sure not the solution.TMCk (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's a big difference in my experience between being "known to the police" and being a convicted criminal. The Daily Telegraph has a decent reputation for fact-checking, but I think we should insist on further or better sources on a WP:BLP issue. --John (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And, on reflection I removed this claim from the article pending better sourcing. I notice the Times article calls him a "small-time drug dealer and drifter with a record of petty crime who according to some witnesses harassed women and stole from their handbags" but also "working in bars,... and allegedly to introduce students from middle-class families to drugs" (my bolding). Again, I don't think this provides the very high standards we need to make such a claim about a living person. As an editor here I obviously recuse from using admin tools on this article, but I would take an extremely dim view on anybody reverting this back in, and would definitely take any such editing to a central venue. On the other hand, if further sources and discussion lead to a consensus here that this material is justified, I will be happy to see it return. --John (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No complaints from me. My initial objections to that phrasing was the "Though he had no criminal record at the time of the murder, Guede was well-known to the police as a drug dealer and petty criminal by the time Kercher was murdered." I think half of the dead English teachers in the world have contemplated returning to life to do something with that phrase. The sourcing isn't the best, and I think part of the problem is a lack of precision in some of those articles. Locally (for me), someone that has one or two possession convictions (minor with alcohol or marijuana) will generally be treated in a similar manner to someone with a clean record, particularly when young. I think there was a subtle push at one time to put Guede in a poor light. I'll do some searches and see if I can't find anything useful. Ravensfire (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Something interesting - this article includes the youth and lack of record comment, but sources it to Guede's attorney. I somehow missed that when I first reviewed it. There's no way that supports stating flat out in the article that he has no record. The court said they cut the sentence because he was the only one that apologized to Kercher's family. Interesting - we may be able to toss out that part (no record), and come up with a good way to include the other information. Ravensfire (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I remember thoroughly discussing this edit previously. We had several sources that said that he had no criminal record, several that said that he was well known as a small-time drug dealer, and some that said he had minor drug offenses. Under the Italian system, this was explained as non-contradictory (getting pulled in for small offenses or being known does not necessarily lead to a criminal record. I don't see a problem here.LedRush (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I don't recall that. Any chance of linking to the archive and/or putting up the sources for discussion? --John (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did find this, but I can't see credible sources or anything resembling a consensus to include this information on a living person. Or was there somewhere else? --John (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I can find many sources of vastly varying qualities. I really don't have time to sort through this again, so the following is a bit of an information dump (sorry, I hate it when people do this to me, and now I'm doing it to you). General discussion with sources (including Dempsey's book) [5]. More and different sources (hatted) [6]. Consensus for inclusion of most of the material (including contributions by Errant) [7].LedRush (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion in archive 30 is pretty sparse and there isn't much (or any) discussion about this specific section. 24 and 25 have some better information with some sources that should be helpful (and some that are junk). There's a fair amount of OR/SYNTH from an editor in those sections, so I'm only going to look at better sources linked in those. With only a quick glance, I think the no record is supportable. The "known to police" phrase seems to reflect to sources, but is awkward and not really NPOV. There's a better way to put this - I'll ponder and see if I can come up with something this evening. I thinking along the lines of "no criminal record, but was accused of X by Y and stopped by A with B". If we're going to add this to Guede, should we also need check for similar things for Knox and Sollecito? Thinking marijuana usage. I'm leaning to no, but being careful with the information added to Guede's section. Worried about UNDUE if Guede has massive detail, but Knox and Sollecito don't. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Possession of pot (under certain amounts) in Washington is akin to a parking ticket. Being accused of entering into people's houses with knives is not.LedRush (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Possession of pot is legal in many parts of US.RockSound (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So we should drop the "drugdealer" part of Guede?TMCk (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Guede is documented to have 1)broken into a school, stolen cash, and armed himself with a knife, and 2) was found in possession of stolen goods including a laptop originating from a burglary of an office in Perugia. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You know me :) I'm generally in favour of not really writing anything about any of their pasts. "Although he had no serious criminal record at the time of the murder" didn't strike me as very good - it is a little too POV (of the line "well he was never caught, but look what a naughty boy he was"). Minor drug offences.. "meh", lots of people have them, doesn't seem relevant. The knife incident has more relevance if well cited. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the Telegraph reference and the thread of discussion is here. He had an arrest record prior to the events. I added it here on Apr. 4 and you can follow the next few edits to see how the sentence evolved.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What's an "arrest record"? --John (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A record of being detained by police. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What does it look like? --John (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Different formats in different places (and at different times). In the US, the first part pops up on a monitor in a patrol car and lets the officer know that an individual has been arrested before regardless of whether they have been convicted of anything or not. The significance here is that it explains how the police happened to have Guede's fingerprints prior to Kercher's murder. Fingerprint cards are part of an arrest record. Here is an example.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. This may be a cultural difference then. In the UK and I suspect in Italy (anybody actually know?) such things are not a matter of public record, as the presumption of innocence applies unless a guilty verdict is obtained at trial. I certainly don't think we should base anything negative relating to a living person on reports of an arrest record; my opinion would be that nothing short of a conviction would be suitable for this. --John (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

When I was first addressing the issue it was because the article was missing how the police made the logical connection to Guede...it is simply explaining that. An arrest record doesn't implicate guilt. I do believe it should be stated that he was previously arrested for logical reasons.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Body moved after death

Do we have any secondary sources to support the statement in the article that Kercher's body was moved after death? ABC news has reported that there was no evidence that her body was moved after death [8]. I suggest just deleting the statement under general WP policies regarding sourcing and for BLP concerns. However, I would not be opposed to attributing the opinion to the specific report and then mentioning ABC's rebuttal, though that seems unnecessary. LedRush (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Put the source of the original statement and the source that disagrees. Ravensfire (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, easiest way would be to replace the current wording with "Reports differ on whether the body was moved after death", then the two sources. I've seen this used in multiple articles and is a clean way to handle this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If we found any secondary sources that stated that the body was moved, I might agree with you.LedRush (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The ABC source is incorrect as they state that no source states that the body was moved. That means we exclude the ABC source. That isn't a rebuttal on their part, just incorrect reporting. They state "There was nothing to suggest during the investigation or the trial that the bra clasp was cut off hours after Kercher died or that her body was moved. " which is clearly wrong.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say "which is clearly wrong"? I would say that it is clearly correct. Issymo (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be hasty here! Maybe the ABC is correct. Our article says the body was "moved some time after death" but the source given to support that claim says no such thing. Moriori (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the ABC source is clearly wrong. Can you please show me a secondary source that says that the body was moved after the time of death? Also, where do they state that no source has reported that the body was moved after death? I don't see that at all. They say that there was nothing in the investigation to suggest it was moved. Perhaps other sources have come to the conclusions it was moved for other reasons.LedRush (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Right here is where the ABC says there was "nothing to suggest during the investigation or the trial that the bra clasp was cut off hours after Kercher died or that her body was moved." What bothers me more is that our article claims the body was moved but does not have a source to justify the claim.Moriori (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Dateline NBC as source here, in an interview with Nadeau where she states that during trial..."The prosecution also asserted the body was moved after Meredith died; blood smears on the floor described the motion. Also the bed cover thrown over it had no transfer blood on it, meaning the victim's blood had dried before the body was covered up.".

This seems to answer both of your questions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Alas, no. The best that the source would allow in here would be that "Nadeau has stated that the prosecution asserted that...".LedRush (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Right then BH, who should remove the irrelevant source in the article and replace it with the one you have given? And, who should amend that paragraph to say something like Ravensfire suggested, that reports differ on whether the body was moved after death, and giving both the opposing NBC and ABC sources? Moriori (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement should be deleted. If the information is so important, why have no RSs commented on it (BH's example is an interview with someone who said the prosecution asserted something)? To have this type of statement in here, which bring up such serious BLP issues, we should have rock solid sources.LedRush (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If either the prosecution asserted the body was moved or Micheli asserted it in his findings, then ABC would be flat wrong that no one else put this forth in trial. I don't see ABC contesting anyone else's statements about the body having been moved but rather that they failed to find it and then stating it as a presumed fact. I'm suggesting that the ABC source not be used as it appears to be errant. I suggest that we keep looking until we find something more concrete or compelling than what we currently have. What does Nadeau's book have on this? It may trace back to a more concrete source.

How is the statement that the body may have been moved a potential BLP violation? ...and against whom?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue for those accused of the murder, (it states as fact a piece of information that would implicate the appellants). And I still don't see proof that ABC's opinion is wrong or that it should be discounted. At the absolute worst, it is an opinion about evidence of the trial. But seeing as we have no secondary sources to contradict it, there isn't an issue. As this is such a big BLP violation, I am deleting the sentence. If secondary sources (rock solid ones) are found, we can add it back with the caveat suggested above.LedRush (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

With a discussion going on here, why would you suddenly declare that you are deleting the sentence? That comes across as bad faith. Please wait until things are decided upon.

If the body was moved that does not necessarily implicate Knox & Sollecito...I would personally believe Guede. No source has stated clearly who moved the body so this isn't a BLP issue at all. Either the body was or wasn't moved. If it was, we don't remove things because it might implicate the accused. Let's try to deal with the facts of the case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Bad faith", says the guy who deleted the dubious tag without finding any evidence to support the proposition that it wasn't dubious. Per BLP, it must be deleted first and then re-added after discussion. It is also a BLP issue for Guede, as he is also accused, but the implications are somewhat less.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did find a source which supported that. It is not a BLP issue for Guede...he's convicted! You haven't made the case that it is a BLP violation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you found a source that said that someone said that the prosecution said that. Huge difference.LedRush (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in what you removed is a BLP violation at all. The facts or possible facts stand apart from the accused. If they didn't do it then they didn't do it...If they did, then they did. We don't whitewash the crime because of it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There can't be a whitewash because there haven't been any secondary sources that have said what the article does.LedRush (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree that the prosecution has stated that the body was moved?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree the defense has said the body was not moved after death? The sentence should be removed. The article should not state things that are in dispute as fact. Issymo (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it, but we don't have good evidence to support it. All we have is that somebody said that they prosecution said that the body was moved.LedRush (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur - and it would be a bad idea to leave the article open to any "the prosecution said X but the defence said Y" bloat here, this has been a huge problem in the past and makes for a huge, muddled read. pablo 12:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this sufficient?

• "The prosecution also asserted the body was moved after Meredith died; blood smears on the floor described the motion. Also the bed cover thrown over it had no transfer blood on it, meaning the victim's blood had dried before the body was covered up." MSNBC. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That is the quote from Nadeau we've been discussing already. That supports "Nadeau said that the prosecution said that..."LedRush (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nadeau is wrong again. Her sentence "the bed cover thrown over it had no transfer blood on it, meaning the victim's blood had dried before the body was covered up." is simply not true. The duvet has a great deal of blood on it and the stains were obviously made while the fatal wound was bleeding heavily. Here are photos of the duvet - http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/duvet.html Issymo (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, and your statement is pure OR. Ravensfire (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand IIP can not be used as a source. Isn't a photo a PS instead of OR? This is the discussion page though and it is an actual photo that proves that Nadeau, or actually what the prosecution said, is wrong. I think the language used in the article "Her body had been disrobed and moved some time after death.[27]" is stating disputed facts are fact. This should not be allowed. Only things that are not disputed should be frased as facts. The source given for this was Rudy Guede's trial but the Massei report is not saying the same thing. Nadeau is saying the prosecution said the body was moved after death, the defense is not. Issymo (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Fisher also states that the prosecution argued the body was moved. If Nadeau & Fisher coming from both sides, "guilters" & pro-Knox supporters, state that the prosecution made this argument...is this not sufficient to concede that they (the prosecution) did? If so, then the ABC source is flat wrong. Remember ABC stated, "There was nothing to suggest during the investigation or the trial that the bra clasp was cut off hours after Kercher died or that her body was moved. "....but clearly they are wrong. The prosecution suggested it. Mignini tried to assert that Knox & Sollecito came back later and moved the body. The ABC source is just slipshod reporting...not a rebuttal.

Now, I'm not endorsing Mignini's argument that Knox & Sollecito moved the body...but it seems apparent that she was, in fact, moved if nothing else to position her on the pillow. Personally, I don't have a problem believing that this was likely Guede moving the body. Most importantly, our article here does not implicate any particular parties as moving the body...just that it may have been moved. This is not a BLP issue. In the trial section, it would be prudent to state that the defense contests that the body was moved (at all?) but certainly not by Knox & Sollecito. Is this a balanced way of presentation?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring two key words in this "after death". Those words imply that someone returned to the scene to stage the murder. I don't think it is enough to just leave it hanging out there that perhaps the other person accused did it. I agree that everyone admits the prosecution claimed this, but our article should not state it as a fact since that is highly disputed. "Her body had been disrobed and moved some time after death.[27]" is also in conflict with the Massei Report which claims MK was disrobed and attacked by the three of them while she struggled and does NOT say the body was moved after death. So if the prosecution at one time claimed the body was moved after death, this was not accepted by Massei and should be dropped at this point because it wasn't in the final report. Issymo (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unqualified assertions from the Micheli Report which implicate Knox and Sollecito should not be in the article at all since Knox and Sollecito were not represented at that trial. The Micheli Report deals with Guede, the Massei report with Knox and Sollecito. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation to Hold Knox and Sollecito out as Legally Guilty of Murder

I see there is concern above about holding Guede out as having a prior criminal conviction, when that may be a BLP violation if incorrect.

Yet an obvious major BLP violation pertaining to Knox and Sollecito is being fostered in this article.

This article lede and througout makes it sound like Knox and Sollecito have been determined to be guilty of this murder. That is false. Their legal status in Italy is "innocent". It is false and misleading and a very serious BLP violation to hold someone out as guilty of a crime, and intentionally withold the fact that their legal status is "innocent" at this time. Someone deleted my edits claiming that to include their legal status as innocent was "too much detail". That is not persuasive, when that same person insisted on including the length of the sentences, which are of minor importance in comparison to their legal status of innocent vs. guilty. A reader perusing this lede and article will think that Knox and Sollecito have been ruled guilty, when that is only an interim finding and they remain "innocent' at this time.

The interest should be in presenting the reality of the situation, not in engaging in wishful thinking. Presently, Knox and Sollecito are legally innocent of the crime. That needs to be stated right up front, along with the damaging information that they were found guilty at a first level trial. RockSound (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if you are correct in your analysis: 1. it is correct to say that they have been convicted; 2. we need secondary sources which make this point. WP is not about truth. We report what reliable sources state. Also, the lede doesn't say they are guilty; it says they have been convicted and are appealing.LedRush (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

They have not been convicted. That is the point. A conviction is a final ruling, not an interim ruling. If one of them died today, they would not even have a criminal conviction on their record, because there was no final judgment entered before death. Their legal status today is "innocent" and that must be stated up front along with the fact that they were found guilty at a first level trial. RockSound (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But all the RSs disagree with you on this point. Out of curiosity, how would you describe their "convictions"?LedRush (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• The facts that more than one appeal is permitted and that there is presumption of innocence should figure somewhere in the article. However, RockSound, Glrx was not at fault to revert your edits to the lead section on the rationale of "too much detail". What is more, in accordance with the Manual of Style, no statement should appear in the introduction without repetition and elaboration elsewhere. Your claim that lengths of the sentences are trivial in comparison to "legal status" is, for the most part, opinion - an opinion that is not supported by the majority of secondary sources, which talk of (presumed) guilt and sentences while making little of this (small, but no doubt important) difference between the judicial systems of Italy and many Anglophone nations. Yes, the initial verdicts are only an "interim finding", but on the basis of WP:UNDUE I do not necessarily agree that an explanation detailing the conduct of appeals in Italy is merited in the lead section, least of all when it entails removing the references to the 26- and 25-year sentences (which certainly are significant details). SuperMarioMan 03:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, you refer to RS's that disagree with me. Would you please provide them? In answer to your question: I would describe them as being found guilty at a first level trial. But they have not been convicted, because there has been no final ruling. Why is this so hard to grasp? The Italian Constitution makes it very clear that there is no definitive determination of guilt until the appeals are completed. Art. 27(2) of the Italian Constitution states that “the defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed”.

This lede creates the impression that Knox and Sollecito have been convicted. That is a BLP violation of significant magnitude. RockSound (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• One other thing: didn't Guede also have the right to two appeals and the presumption of innocence until the end? The lead section states that "[Guede's] conviction was upheld in two appeals" before going on to state that "Knox and Sollecito are entitled to two appeals". Similarly, the subsection on Guede's appeals specifically mentions a first and a second hearing, but it is only when it comes to the text on Knox and Sollecito that the provisions under Italian law are made clear ("In May 2010, Guede launched a second and final appeal to the Court of Cassation ... This is the first of two appeals to which Knox and Sollecito are entitled under Italian law. They retain presumption of innocence until all appeals are completed.") If anything, this new information belongs with the text relating to Guede (who, after all, has gone through the appeals process first). It seems unusual that the explanation regarding the conduct of appeals is delayed until the focus of the article shifts to Knox and Sollecito. SuperMarioMan 04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rudy Guede has been convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Knox and Sollecito have not been convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher, but may or may not be convicted at the end of their appeals. Simple as that. But these simple, obvious facts are being muddled, twisted and confused in the article. RockSound (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If that were so, K and N would have walked out of the court, free, at the end of the trial. Moriori (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not so. But this was already discussed above. They are in custody for the same reasons they have been in custody since November of 2007---risk of flight, not conviction. RockSound (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

RockSound, your response does not address the concern that I raised. The right to two appeals and the presumption of innocence applies to all the defendants, does it not? It is a general provision under Italian law (as the sources state), is it not? It seems illogical to refer to two appeals in the case of Guede while only explaining the actual processes (e.g. two appeals and presumption of innocence) later on (in the text about Knox and Sollecito's appeals). This also seems rather dubious with a mind to WP:NPOV. Either the explanation should be placed where the subject of appeals first arises (i.e. in the case of Guede - far more logical here than later in the article), or it should be completely disassociated from all the defendants, perhaps in the form of a footnote. SuperMarioMan 04:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But isn't it only currently applicable for Knox and Sollecito? If they lose their appeals, and the convictions become final, the issue is moot and wouldn't need to be mentioned at all, right?LedRush (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there is also the aim of maintaining a historical perspective when possible, and avoiding recentism. It simply seems more logical to me to give the explanation when, chronologically, the matter of appeals first comes up. This is what I have attempted in this edit. May I ask what others think of it? SuperMarioMan 05:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

SMM: I have no problem briefly including this info at the start of the second paragraph in the lede, so that it is clear the presumptions and processes apply to all defendants. I will draft something tomorrow, short and crisp for the second paragraph in the lede. RockSound (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I just saw SMM's edit which I don't think provides sufficient clarification. I must sign off for the night, but will try to return tomorrow with something a bit clearer and crisper on these particular points. I think we will be helping the readers a great deal if we can provide them with a sharp, accurate intro that quickly lets them know where the defendants stand. After all, this is a very, very, long article. Good night. RockSound (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, RockSound. Of course, my edit isn't set in stone. SuperMarioMan 05:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For all of this... there is 'yet to be a source presented which clarifies (in relation to this case) where the problem is. They have been convicted at their first trial, this is indisputable; and those claiming they are not convicted have not read the sources or understood Italian law (they are not considered definitively guilty before the law until appeals are concluded, but they are definitely convicted). All sources say they are currently serving sentences, no source has been presented to suggest this is not the case. Every time this comes up my response is the same; "seems reasonable, do you have a source". It feels like the second half of that statement just gets glossed over. So I will stress it again - please provide a source. Without one it is a bit difficult to work on content :) (and, yes, I have tried to find one with minimal success) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's an important point. More sources would be an advantage. SuperMarioMan 11:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agre with you, Errant.

Technically, Amanda and Raffaele are still presumed not guilty and will be so considered until a final judgement has been passed. Article 650 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure states that only irrevocable convictions can be eseguite (enforced); art. 648 lists the cases when a judgement can be considered irrevocable. In this case, Amanda and Raffaele's convictions are not;therefore, the are still considered not guilty, meaning that they are not serving their sentences yet, that the burden of proof is still on the prosecution and that, if the statute of limitation were to expire (which, in this case, is highly improbable), they would be acquitted.

To describe them as guilty, then, would definitely be a BLP-vio; to say that a Court of law has convicted them (and they are appealing), on the other hand, is not, because that's merely the description of an easily proveable historical event. The appellate court may uphold (confermare), quash (annullare) or modify (modificare) the original judgement, but this does not change the fact that the Corte d'Assise has convicted them.

Furthermore, they are not yet serving their sentences. Usually, at this stage, a defendant is still free and will be gaoled only after his conviction has become irrevocable, unless it has been deemed appropriate that he be kept in custodia cautelare (pre-trial detention, you'd call it). In this case, it was concluded that Amanda and Raffaele were flight risk and it was feared that they might committ other crimes and, so, they were remanded in custody; in fact, they could be released at any time, if a Judge deemed that it is no longer necessary to keep them in gaol, because they're no longer a flight risk.

As a side note, the summary proceeding aimed at determining if pre-trial detention is warranted is called processo cautelare and it involves the Judge for the Preliminary Investigations (or the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing or the trial Judge), whose order can be appealed before the Tribunale del Riesame and, then, before the Court of Cassation (due to art. 111 of the Italian Constitution, which states that Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures on personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts.); this isn't the same kind of appeal that would follow a judgement passed by a Court of Appeal, even thought the deciding body is the same, which can cause a bit of confusion.

One more thing, If one of them died today, they would not even have a criminal conviction on their record, because there was no final judgment entered before death, this is correct, under art. 69 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: if a defendant dies before a final judgement has been passed, the trial judge must pass a sentenza di non doversi procedere per estinzione del reato (which is not a not-guilty verdict, but the criminal record of the deceased remains clean, because this second judgement would substitute that of the first Court).

I know that all this is just WP:OR and, probably, WP:SYNTH for the moment, but I have very little time these days to look for sources (especially ones in English); I just hope this can help clarify things a bit. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I provided this English language source higher up the page. This issue is being covered in two places: Presumption of innocence means that a person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law (Art. 6 (2) ECHR). The presumption of innocence is also codified in Art. 27(2) of the Italian Constitution, which states that “the defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed”. The document is a PDF. This part is on page 22 of the PDF. The title is: "Pre-trial Detention in the European Union - An Analysis of Minimum Standards in Pre-trial Detention and the Grounds for Regular Review in the Member States of the EU - A.M. van Kalmthout, M.M. Knapen, C. Morgenstern (eds.) ISBN: 978-90-5850-524-8 The web address is - http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/criminal/procedural/doc/chapter_15_Italy_en.pdf As I stated above, the Italian Constitution must be considered a reliable source. Defendants who are still going through the trials process have a different name - "imputato" - from those with convictions confirmed and they are kept in different prisons (or are still at liberty, like Mignini). Just because this principle is ignored and misunderstood in the English language media, that is no reason for Wikipedia to add to the confusion. BLP considerations require that Knox and Sollecito's current legal status should be correctly described. NigelPScott (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Nigel. It is not possible for a person to be deemed innocent of a crime and yet be convicted of a crime at the same time. The person is either convicted or not guilty, but cannot be both. Since the Italian Constitution makes it clear that Knox and Sollecito are presently not guilty of the crime, this absolutely must be made clear in the lede to avoid BLP violations. RockSound (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So how exactly do you propose presenting the fact that an Italian court convicted them? Once gain; do you have a source that details this information about them not being "finally guilty", convicted or serving sentences. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Another issue here is that there is an attempt to use Italian law to justify BLP violations. That doesn't work as Italian law has no jurisdiction here. The only laws that count in that regard are the laws of the United States and the laws of Florida which is where the Wikimedia servers are located. Within the US, someone could write an article calling Knox & Sollecito murderers and they may present the findings of the court ruling as fact because that is what has prevailed so far. It does not matter that an appeal is ongoing. The author would not be guilty of libel because they would be reporting what the court has said. There is no valid civil or criminal legal recourse against the author or publisher. Italian law may not be used to justify BLP issues here. If the court makes new rulings then we can revisit to make corrections.

This is completely false. As an attorney with many years of experience in the US, I can tell you that there is a cause of action in the US for defamation over this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Per no legal threats, please strike out your comment immediately. I will also be leaving this request on your user page. Making or implying legal actions in an attempt to intimidate editors is absolutely unacceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that it may be worthy of mentioning this interesting fact in the Trials/Appeals section that they are presumed innocent while the appellate process is ongoing under the Italian legal system.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I too believe so and wonder why an editor just removed the explaining bit as being in the wrong spot of the article.TMCk (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

He moved it to the Knox appeals section; to be honest I don't disagree that it fits there a little better in the current setup - especially as the article it is sourced to is about Knox's appeals. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to keep it there if it wasn't for SM's convincing rationale to have it added to the top of the appeals section as this applies to all defendants even so one is certainly past that by now, but since we write from a historical perspective Guede too had this "priviledge".TMCk (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that most editors are not familiar with the Italian judicial system, putting a section between current sections 4 and 5 highlighting the differences and unusual characteristics of that system makes a lot of sense. What's confusing to me is where the view is coming from that any editor here is saying K & S are legally guilty of murder. Trust me, it's been thoroughly pounded into our heads by various editors that, under the Italian court system, they aren't guilty under law. No kidding, we get that. The article should NOT say that K & S are guilty. However, it would be an utter breach of WP:NPOV to NOT say that they were found guilty by the inital trial court. That's the main reason this drama-fest is going on here! If they'd been found innocent, this article would have been done long, long ago and probably been 1/4 the size it is. But they weren't. Regardless of what any editor feels about the verdict, they were found guilty by the Corte d'Assise. It is a major factor of this case and absolutely must remain in the article and in the lede. If they are eventually found innocent in their appeals, it will still have to say that the were found guilty by one court, appealed and were found innocent. I'm befuddled why anyone is thinking otherwise. Ravensfire (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

An NPOV issue

Per the NPOV tag policy; the tag can be removed upon a consensus of agreement, as happened. So this tag I presume to be a new addition to the article; Rocksound, having read the NPOV policy, will know that he must now detail the specific neutrality issue he feels exists so that it can be addressed and the tag removed. I presume he simply forgot to do so when adding the tag just now :) so this is section is a friendly reminder for him to do so. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus for removal. But it was removed anyway. I merely put it back. Many editors objected, so I don't see how you can say there was consensus for removal.

Can you please link to this NPOV tag policy you refer to? RockSound (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If he does so in a convincing way I will restore the badge of shame myself.TMCk (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated my concerns about this article above, several times. It is consistent with what Mr. Wales has said. The article is biased and slanted because there has been a blocking or removal of material from reliable sources. Here are some of his comments for reference:

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)

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

My point is this: reliable sources are raising serious doubts about her guilt. We have to report on that. Even if some people think she's guilty. Tarc suggested - in a factually mistaken manner - that objections here are like those of JFK conspiracy theorists. That's obviously false, when those objections are based on serious requests that reliable sources be taken seriously.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

John, you ask if I think the article should have an NPOV tag now. I think that as long as there are legitimate conflicts here about whether or not the article is neutral, we should have an NPOV tag so as to warn our readers that we haven't reached consensus. Unlike some, I am an eternal optimist, and I think we actually can reach consensus. I agree with SuperMarioMan, too: the best thing to do is to raise specific objections to specific parts of the article, with proposed revisions and quality sources. A general rant "this is not neutral" isn't as good as more specific things. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Some editors are editing to present a POV. Some editors edit so as to make Knox and Sollecito look as guilty as possible and to present as favorable a picture as possible of Guede. That is not justified, since Knox and Sollecito are currently innocent, while Guede has a determinative conviction. Material added to correct the imbalance is systematically removed,as just happened with my most recent edits. The bias in the article is obvious. There is a blocking of efforts to clarify the status of Knox and Sollecito, for example. Deletion or distortion of the level of support for Knox and Sollecito. Evidence presented so as to point to K and S. Extensive discussion of prosecution materials with little about what the defense has countered. Exclusion of discussion about legitimate criticism of the evidence. Exclusion of discussion about prosecutor. Exclusion of dicussion about what public figures are saying. I could go on and on.RockSound (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you stop the "Jimbo has said" red herring and present specifics as to why the general NPOV tag is warranted despite consensus against it. If you feel that a section or more are slanted in one way please present your objections and maybe a section NPOV tag is warranted. And you really should stop the "Some editors are editing to present a POV" thingy as you would be one of them.TMCk (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: user:RockSound changed his comment after I replied[9].TMCk (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Those comments were maid in March, now we have June.TMCk (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I added some June quotes by Mr. Wales above, which shows that he too thinks that a NPOV tag is appropriate. As for a listing of non-neutral/bias defects, see my list above. That should be enough, but if you need more I will add more when I have more time. But generally all this seems like a waste of time, since any efforts to bring balance to this article using information from reliable sources is being deleted. RockSound (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few editors have argued that the tag isn't appropriate. I for one would like to see proponents of the tag offer a rationale that is a little more cogent (and also assumes less bad faith) than "censorship of dissent not allowed". It is well known that this topic is contentious - I see little need to have a tag placed at the head of the article so as to provide us with a conscious reminder of that fact whenever we click on the link. SuperMarioMan 22:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Rocksound, Wales is one editor with one opinion. You have made your point about what you feel the POV problems with the article are, but this opinion has not gained sufficient consensus among other editors. Tarc (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Many editors on here have said that the NPOV tag should not have been deleted. It was deleted without consensus. It is beyond dispute that NPOV is being disputed in this article. To say that there is no dispute is disingenuous. Since there is clearly a dispute, Wiki allows the placement of a template and even provides sample templates to use. The removal of the NPOV tag, while deleting all of my many edits today, even very minor ones, is just another example of the neckhold POV pro-guilt censorship that is going on here. RockSound (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There are too many problems with this article, I would like the NPOV tag put back up and left there until after the appeal. Issymo (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)